+ Reply to Thread
Results 81 to 90 of 507
22-11-2013 07:21 #81
The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:
22-11-2013 07:25 #82
Greg Smith, current NSW attorney general used to be ceo of anti-abortion group "Right to Life"
I think we all know where some of these people want the rest of the laws to be heading.
Fred Nile holds balance of power and has used it.
22-11-2013 07:26 #83
But what constitutes a problem?? There seems too much room for abuse of such laws. I read recently about a US woman who confided in her GP that she used to have a drug problem- used to. She was at the dr to confirm her pregnancy. Before she knew it, she was handcuffed and taken to gaol and had to appear in court and defend herself against the lawyer appointed to her unborn foetus. What if someone lies? Says a woman has been drunk every night, fills her bin with empty wine bottles? What happens then?
The DV mention I don't like either. If a woman is in a DV situation she is worth saving whether or not she is pregnant. Though many people say victims of DV have chosen to stay there, quite often this is not the case- many DV victims have suffered systematic abuse, had their self confidence shattered, been isolated from friends and family and are suffering fro depression, anxiety and even PTSD. Present are vulnerable women and they deserve help whether they are pregnant or not. Obviously it's also unfair to bring a baby in to such a situation. There's no easy answer- I don't know what the answer is but I do think DV prevention is a better starting point as is more tangible help to get victims out of these situations, and harsher penalties for abusers.
22-11-2013 09:22 #84-
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
This article interesting. It discusses the the current law surrounding GBH and how it already includes 'destruction of the foetus'.
This new legislation appears to be very distinct in the crime being against the unborn baby, rather than the mother:
The Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill 2005 (also known as Byron's Law) widened the definition of grievous bodily harm to include ‘the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman’.
This change meant that if you assaulted a person in such a way that caused no or little harm to them directly, but brought about the ‘destruction of the foetus’, then you had inflicted grievous bodily harm on the woman.
It [Byron's law] was an awkward compromise between the desire to provide an appropriate penalty for serious offences and recognize the harm caused without giving personhood to foetuses.
Things have continued in the same way since. In essence, if a person causes the death of a foetus, then we punish them as if they had destroyed an organ in the body of the pregnant women. It doesn't make a lot of sense when one considers first principles, but everyone seemed happy enough with the arrangement.
Everyone, that is, apart from Fred Nile.
Fred Nile says that when he agreed to pass the Newcastle Ports bill, the government agreed to pass Zoe's Law through the Upper House, but retained the right to amend it in the Lower House.
The government has subsequently denied that any such deal was made.
Last edited by 1234Guest; 22-11-2013 at 09:50.
The Following User Says Thank You to 1234Guest For This Useful Post:
22-11-2013 09:39 #85
I don't agree with this at all
22-11-2013 09:40 #86
It changes the status of a fetus. Slippery slope
The Following User Says Thank You to Buttoneska For This Useful Post:
22-11-2013 10:29 #87
We are under a right wing Government. We need to be very aware of what this could potentially mean when it comes to women's rights. We can very, very easily head down the same path as many states in the US, where women can come under fire for having an abortion, because rights and personhood have been given to the foetus. It's very dangerous territory.
To add on to my first post in this thread where I said that eve now, women are still fighting for their rights to safe, legal, abortions in this country, a bill was FINALLY passed just yesterday, in Tasmania, given women those rights. Abortion in Tasmania, until yesterday, was still listed as a criminal act. The proposal of the bill came under fire, from many religious groups, wanting to stop it going ahead.
With a law like this one, granting personhood to a foetus, whilst it may start out with good intentions, has the very real possibility of spiraling downwards to a point where women can be charged over any harm that may come to their unborn. Just like in the US.
On the surface, this law seems like a good one, but you have to think critically about it, things can and do change, laws get twisted and abused all the times, loopholes are found etc etc etc
It would be incredibly naive to think that this law won't be abused in some manner. Maybe not right now, but sometime in the future. Do we really want there to be the potential to prosecute women for miscarrying? Falling down stairs? Contracting toxoplasmosis from changing the litter of carrier cat? From eating a dodgy salad roll and being struck with listeria? These may sound ridiculous I'm sure, but it happens. Women have been prosecuted for these types of things in other parts of the world, how can we be so sure that it won't happen here...?
22-11-2013 11:30 #88
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
22-11-2013 11:33 #89
AI haven't read all the replies, but just based on the story and my own personal experience, I'm CAUTIOUSLY leaning towards being happy/supportive of this. I can see how it could snowball and if misinterpreted or its meaning stretched in the wrong way from where it was intended, it could cause quite a few issues.
However, at 36weeks pregnant with ds, I had collected a frappe from maccas and was taking it to my mum, who I was about to visit in hospital. Driving through the carpark a p plater planted their foot and tboned me on the passenger side. I was only going maybe 15kms, but the impact was so hard, it damaged the door and the doorwell (pannels between front/back door)!
I was so petrified something had happened to ds, I hadn't felt him move (he was always an active bub) luckily, he was ok...
But, if something happened to him, I would definately have wanted something like zoes law. It would have eased the grieving process, I couldn't have got my baby back but at least he would have been acknowledged. As it stands, it wouldnt have mattered (to anyone but us) and they would have got away with ...well... Murder.
Sent from my GT-S5830T using The Bub Hub mobile app
Last edited by shadowangel0205; 22-11-2013 at 11:37.
22-11-2013 11:43 #90
I haven't read all the replies but I think it is a good thing....
"Premier Barry O'Farrell said the bill was not about winding back abortion.
"It means that people in Brodie Donegan's position can have that healing process assisted," he said.
"... it will be recognition that there wasn't just injury to the mother, but potential injury to the fetus in utero."
How is this a bad thing?
It also states....
"the law would not apply to anything done with a woman's consent or in a medical procedure"
So I fail to see an issue, it is about criminal acts! Not abortion.
To say it can turn into something it wasn't intended to (take away women's rights), is a BIG if scenario. Why not cross that bridge 'if' it comes to that.
I challenge any mother, to say they would rather ensure 'women's rights' over the life of their own child. All of you who say, it will lead to the abolishment of legal abortion, I sincerely hope you aren't put in Zoe's parents shoes, because I'm sure if you were you would want justice for your baby, you wouldn't be sitting there saying, "Oh well Joe Blogs, I'm happy for you not to charged for murdering my unborn child when you crashed into me on the road, I am just glad women still have their right to abortion!!!!!?
Last edited by A-Squared; 22-11-2013 at 12:09.
Innovations Sports PhysiotherapyWomen’s Health Physios who are able to assess and treat a wide range of Pregnancy and Post Natal Issues. We offer ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
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 ...
ConfusedConception & Fertility General Chat
Situations - ok or not ok?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Would you delay TTC because first child is starting first year of school.General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
IVF babies due March/April/May 2017#2pregnancy and babies through IVF
What are our chances??pregnancy and babies through IVF
Miracle March TTC and Testing ChatConception & Fertility General Chat