Zoe's law - Foetal rights (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

The NSW Legislative Assembly has passed Zoe's law (Crimes Amendment (Zoe’s Law) Act 2013) in a conscience vote. It now goes to the upper house.

The law would amend the Crimes Act to prohibit conduct that causes serious harm to or the destruction of a foetus more than 20 weeks old or weighing over 400g.

Opponents argue that the bill is a slippery slope and is a threat to abortion rights.

Read the bill here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/bill/calb2013266/

Thoughts?

Brodie Donegan was 32 weeks pregnant when she was hit by a car on the NSW central coast. The driver was high on a cocktail of drugs, including methadone.

As a result of the accident, Brodie lost her baby, who she called Zoe. The woman driver responsible was charged with grievous bodily harm – a criminal offence under the Crimes Act – for the injury she inflicted on the mother. But she couldn’t be charged with a separate offence of injuring Zoe, as the law currently sees a woman and the unborn baby as one and the same.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/zoes-law-passes-in-nsw-parliament-lower-house-20131121-2xxl1.html

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/zoes-law-cheatsheet/

 

[Crobat]

(2) This section does not apply:
(a) to anything done in the course of a medical procedure, or
(b) to anything done by or with the consent of the mother of
the child in utero.​

I think this provision does enough to prevent the criminalisation of abortion and could even be stretched to pave way for the recognition of abortion rights since it recognises the choice of the mother in question and the medical procedure as well.

 

[wannaspoon]

I think this provision does enough to prevent the criminalisation of abortion and could even be stretched to pave way for the recognition of abortion rights since it recognises the choice of the mother in question and the medical procedure as well.

think the concern is that pro-choice advocates are trying to apply a flimsy slippery slope argument... they are fretting over the idea that it would eventually mean women will be ineligible to receive abortions... they are trying to indicate (very poorly) that it is a backward step... no, I do not believe they should concern themselves and the law; it has nothing to do with abortion...

 

[Crobat]

think the concern is that pro-choice advocates are trying to apply a flimsy slippery slope argument... they are fretting over the idea that it would eventually mean women will be ineligible to receive abortions... they are trying to indicate (very poorly) that it is a backward step... no, I do not believe they should concern themselves and the law; it has nothing to do with abortion...

Yeah, I agree. I think if anything this provision is a positive for pro-choice. But then again statutory interpretation is a lot more difficult than plainly looking at the words here, so without an outright recognition there's no guarantee that pro-choice is being protected/advocated within the law. It's a similar situation for gay marriage. Whilst a homosexual couple clarifies as a 'de facto' relationship, a 'de facto' relationship is merely a list of criteria that doesn't outright recognise homosexual relationships (it just gives them the same rights as a married couple without recognising them as married). It's probably a matter of ensuring that the word 'abortion' or something highly similar make it into an Act of Parliament which coherently recognises its legitimacy which is the primary concern for pro-choice activists. That and the fact that the purpose of this provision is to recognise the legal legitimacy of an unborn child to the extent that a person can be punished for harming/killing it - which is, at face value anyway, saying 'no abortion'.

 

[wannaspoon]

think any person can see that this is law relating to illegal abortions or for foetuses that have die as a result of some form of criminal or criminally negligent conduct... I don't see how it would be interpreted any other way...

sorry to say it (well I'm not because there is nothing to be sorry about, its just a simple misunderstanding), but "pro choice" advocates are concerning themselves with nothing...

 

[Crobat]

Yeah, that's true. But to exclude circumstances from being punishable in a specific situation is not necessarily the same as ensuring the same circumstances absolute legitimacy. It'd be arguable at best until a Judge somewhere along the lines outright recognises that the law was made to legitimise abortion, which given the circumstances surrounding its creation, is not actually the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is more likely going to be seen as one to punish those who harm unborn babies, not one to legitimise abortion because of an exemption clause. Unless my understanding of statutory interpretation is wrong, anyway...

So as I said earlier, I think the concern is that the purpose of the Act goes in the opposite direction even though there's an exemption clause. Which does make sense in its own right.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Aborting an foetus is still aborting a baby.... a god damn living being. I still think abortion is wrong either way... Just give the baby to someone else then....

 

[Kiraken]

Aborting an foetus is still aborting a baby.... a god damn living being. I still think abortion is wrong either way... Just give the baby to someone else then....

what is your definition of living and how does this exclude animals etc. too?

what if this abortion is for the purpose of saving the mother's life or because the mother has no means to support the baby?

 

[nerdasdasd]

what is your definition of living and how does this exclude animals etc. too?

what if this abortion is for the purpose of saving the mother's life or because the mother has no means to support the baby?

Then that is ok then .... If the mother is dying then it is ok.

If your definition of "unable to support" is financially then give it away to people who can't physically have kids.

 

[Crobat]

Aborting an foetus is still aborting a baby.... a god damn living being. I still think abortion is wrong either way... Just give the baby to someone else then....

And what if the baby is the result of a rape and/or causing the mother psychological harm?

 

[Kiraken]

Then that is ok then .... If the mother is dying then it is ok.

If your definition of "unable to support" is financially then give it away to people who can't physically have kids.

what if genetic testing indicates that if the fetus is taken to term and born it will live a shorter life with a debilitating disability that renders living extremely difficult and emotionally and physically painful and burdensome?

 

[Crobat]

Then that is ok then .... If the mother is dying then it is ok.

If your definition of "unable to support" is financially then give it away to people who can't physically have kids.

But if you're going to have quite a few exceptions to the rule, why even have the rule in place?

It would be easier to legitimise abortion and exempt people from doing it for shits because they feel like it (by having some sort of means test perhaps) rather than to illegalise it and then have a lengthy list saying when it can be allowed, which would require subsections to prove the situations.

EDIT: Also, even though it's not highly publicised, there are communities which assist people getting illegal abortions. If you know anything about the history of abortions (you may have heard about the 'coat hanger' abortions) you will know that from prohibiting abortion, many people have lost their lives due to infection and the dangerous risks involved with aborting without adequate medical attention/materials/procedures. Even though it is illegal, abortion still occurs, and because of its illegal nature, places a great risk to the life of the mother.

 

[wannaspoon]

what if genetic testing indicates that if the fetus is taken to term and born it will live a shorter life with a debilitating disability that renders living extremely difficult and emotionally and physically painful and burdensome?

What if a cure for that illness is found after you perform that abortion???

I am pro life, but, I do believe concessions are needed... a womans career is not an excuse, a self centred motive is not an excuse... illness is arguable but rape and other (very serious things) are an excuse imo...

However, I feel I am not qualified to make this appraisal as I am a guy and I choose to distance myself from this debate

 

[Kiraken]

What if a cure for that illness is found after you perform that abortion???

I am pro life, but, I do believe concessions are needed... a womans career is not an excuse, a self centred motive is not an excuse... illness is arguable but rape and other (very serious things) are an excuse imo...

However, I feel I am not qualified to make this appraisal as I am a guy and I choose to distance myself from this debate

what if a mother doesn't wanna make such a gamble?

A fetus is essentially a parasitic lifeform (biologically speaking) for the first couple of weeks it is in the mother, she has every right to decide it's fate

 

[Selador]

My problem with it is that it creates a gaping inconsistency in the law on a pretty significant issue - that of when a person comes into being and is offered the protection of the law. How can a foetus be a person for the purposes of one area of the law but not others?

 

[Crobat]

What if a cure for that illness is found after you perform that abortion???

I am pro life, but, I do believe concessions are needed... a womans career is not an excuse, a self centred motive is not an excuse... illness is arguable but rape and other (very serious things) are an excuse imo...

However, I feel I am not qualified to make this appraisal as I am a guy and I choose to distance myself from this debate

I feel this too, which is why I'm pro-mother's-choice specifically. If you feel that simply being a male should disqualify you from having say in what a woman chooses to do with her body, why can you stand for anything else, even a law, telling a woman what to do with her body?

 

[wannaspoon]

I feel this too, which is why I'm pro-mother's-choice specifically. If you feel that simply being a male should disqualify you from having say in what a woman chooses to do with her body, why can you stand for anything else, even a law, telling a woman what to do with her body?

Perhaps, however, you can't underestimate the idea that a man can also be effected by abortion... for instance, man wants to keep it woman wants to do away with it... this would have an effect on a man... so many complexities

 

[Crobat]

Perhaps, however, you can't underestimate the idea that a man can also be effected by abortion... for instance, man wants to keep it woman wants to do away with it... this would have an effect on a man... so many complexities

But there'd have to be a legitimate reason for the woman wanting to abort for the abortion to be accepted in the first place. The woman wouldn't just be able to get an abortion because she wants to. Yes, men can be affected by abortion, but never to the same extent that women will be as they as the ones that feel the immediate and direct effects of the pregnancy.

 

[isildurrrr1]

What if abortion is the link to crime rates dropping?

 

[Crobat]

What if abortion is the link to crime rates dropping?

Can't say I agree with that justification for abortion...