View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | I'm glad it's all so clear to you. Plainly, alternative input is not required and I've wasted my time thinking about these issues. |
Why the sarcasm all of a sudden? I didn't intend to attack you or make it sound like I was dismissing your argument. Sorry if it came across that way. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Couple of points.
The original version of Zoe's law was proposed by Fred Nile. The mother didn't agree with it, didn't support it so she decided to put her own up.
The proposed law is very deliberately targeted to exempt medical procedures or the mother.
The child as I read it, didn't "live" for a while after it was delivered, from what i read it never drew breath so was never for legal purposes alive.
The proposed law, in the form it's in, I would support but it has it's dangers. The law of unintended consequences. Once you assign legal rights or status to an unborn fetus, however limited, you open up the possibility for that to be extended by judges decisions and precedent and you end up in a place that you didn't want to be in, where suddenly abortion has become illegal.
I agree with the principle that if you negligently or deliberately terminate a woman's pregnancy once the fetus has passed 20 weeks it should count as more than just an "injury" to the mother but the logistics are difficult. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Some might be interested to know that, despite passing in New South Wales' legislative assembly, the bill has lapsed in the upper house. It seems the government got cold feet and decided to let it quietly disappear:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/20/zoes-law-bill-lapses-but-critics-call-for-a-version-that-protects-abortion-rights
I'm somewhat disappointed, but I think it at least raised some interesting discussions. I definitely feel there's still room for further legal exploration of personhood, and I think if the cautious approach applied in the formulation of this bill is maintained, some progress can be made in the future. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006 Location: Thailand
|
Post subject: | |
|
So if she had a "Baby on board" sign in the car it would make a difference and nobody would hit it. If you shoot a weapon down the street you get charged whether it is you or a school aged child. What additional penalties would you place on the offender, who despite their obvious failings, would have no way of knowing the full consequences. What if the driver had of hit a blood delivery van or a truck full of methadone and a drug addict died as a consequence.
And where does it stand for example in an abortion clinic if the stress caused to a patient by a protester caused her to miscarriage.
If you listen to some of the American fundamentalists life begins when you unhook the bra strap. Don't give them oxygen. _________________ Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
That's a bit harsh. Zoe was at 32 weeks a viable human being. That poor woman. She's got past the scary 3 months, and she's feeling her child move all the time. She planning her babies life, the songs she will sing, the nursery was probably well on the way to ready. And Zoe didn't die because she wasn't wanted, or because she wasn't healthy, or even just because. She died because some stranger chose to do the wrong thing. That stranger should pay for taking young Zoe's life. Just at that stranger would have just 8 or 9 weeks later. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
If you can philosophically justify the death of an unborn child during the late 3rd trimester then you can philosophically justify killing the same child once it has been born. There is little to no difference that can be discerned between a child the day before it is born and the day after except the method of life support provided.
I find this whole 'debate' to be disturbing and some level of psychopathy must be necessary or simple denial and lack of empathy to not see a viable unborn child as a human.
I think there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, somehow that states that "this unborn child is a human with all rights pertaining to it". The right to terminate a pregnancy should not override the right of a living person to exist. |
|
|
|
|
|