Zoe's law - Foetal rights (1 Viewer)

[Crobat]

the new law (Zoe's law) gives legal rights to a foetus (that is, a > 20 week old child in utero is now a 'living person'). under zoe's law, an offender may now be liable for homicide of a foetus, as distinct from destruction of a foetus as harm to the mother (the current state of the law).

i'm not sure but my intuition leads me to believe that a mother may now be liable for murder/manslaughter of her foetus.

as far as i am aware, there is currently no deficiency in the criminal justice system regarding anyone getting away with killing foetuses, and Zoe's law is another example of absurd legislation that specifically criminalises acts that are already criminal.

Was it essentially a conscience vote?

 

[Spiritual Bean]

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.

This is gold in literary form.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

I mean, forget abortion for a moment. Liberals will get angry (or will downright disagree with you) if you even start talking about the fact that blacks commit more crime. and yet its an assumption that one of their arguments are based on.

and the reason they would be really angry about restricting "reproductive choice" wouldn't even mostly about about that, it would be the "wanting to get rid of black people part". Like I said, they'd be similarly enraged even if it was all just suggestions of voluntary abortions from black women

Objection. Strawman.

 

[wannaspoon]

This is gold in literary form.

 

[Tasteless]

What was the issue of defining a foetus being killed (through an aggressive offender or an accident (not including abortion)) as GBH?

Does that not have a pretty reasonable sentence range anyway?

 

[funkshen]

What was the issue of defining a foetus being killed (through an aggressive offender or an accident (not including abortion)) as GBH?

Does that not have a pretty reasonable sentence range anyway?

because BABIES

 

[JustDance]

because BABIES

 

[Anna Wintour]

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?



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/

its not a threat to abortion rights. Currently late term abortions aren't permitted.

You can't on the one hand have the right to charge someone for murdering your unborn child and then at the same time say that you aren't responsible for doing that yourself if you have a late term partial birth abortion which is actually allowed in victoria.

 

[Anna Wintour]

destruction of a foetus already constitutes an offence

No its GBH to the woman, its not considered murder to the baby which is the whole point.

 

[Anna Wintour]

it remains to be seen whether partial birth abortion would be banned under the medical laws

they usually justify their conduct in circumstances saying it was int he best interests of the patient

most abortion doctors get around this by saying the later term abortion was for psychological or financial reasons.

 

[funkshen]

No its GBH to the woman, its not considered murder to the baby which is the whole point.

yes, exactly, that is the whole point, and is exactly why this law is considered a threat to abortion rights. unborn babies have never been considered to have legal personhood.

yes, this is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup. however, this law does very little to protect women or babies, who are already protected by the law, and punishes offenders far too severely. zoe's killer was guilty of GBH and received a 9 month sentence. if you believe this sentence to be too low, this deficiency could be addressed by including destruction of a foetus as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing principles.

it is quite clear that zoe's law has been hijacked by conservatives in the NSW legislature who are making a moral play. the definition of a foetus relevant to zoe's law as above 20 weeks is very different to the original circumstances (zoe, the unborn child, being over 8 months at death and therefore very close to term).

 

[Anna Wintour]

yes, exactly, that is the whole point, and is exactly why this law is considered a threat to abortion rights. unborn babies have never been considered to have legal personhood.
aggravating circumstance in sentencing principles.

it is quite clear that zoe's law has been hijacked by conservatives in the NSW legislature who are making a moral play. the definition of a foetus relevant to zoe's law as above 20 weeks is very different to the original circumstances (zoe, the unborn child, being over 8 months at death and therefore very close to term).

you're right that this sort of thing is taken into account at sentencing. Any kind of strict liability for killing a fetus is going to have unintended consequences and the wrong people being caught in the net.

 

[JohnMaximus]

(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.

Fucking disgusting.

 

[alstah]

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

Why should the circumstances of your conception determine your human rights? The unborn baby is just as much a victim as the mother.

 

[funkshen]

Why should the circumstances of your conception determine your human rights? The unborn baby is just as much a victim as the mother.

could you show me where, in the relevant criminal or human rights legislation, the human rights of the unborn child are legally defined

seems like you have a really compelling argument there and we need to take it to the high court ASAP

 

[Crobat]

Why should the circumstances of your conception determine your human rights? The unborn baby is just as much a victim as the mother.

I have no idea what you're getting at. An "unborn baby" isn't even human until much later into the pregnancy and, as Kiraken pointed out, is biologically a parasite until then. It follows that it has no human rights because it isn't a human, and I would very much like to see in any legal document or international instrument where the legal rights of a parasite ("unborn baby" if that's what you prefer) is defined.

And ruling out the circumstances of conception... you might as well just condone rape if it leads to pregnancy.

 

[SylviaB]

I have no idea what you're getting at. An "unborn baby" isn't even human until much later into the pregnancy and, as Kiraken pointed out, is biologically a parasite until then. It follows that it has no human rights because it isn't a human, and I would very much like to see in any legal document or international instrument where the legal rights of a parasite ("unborn baby" if that's what you prefer) is defined.

Does that mean you're opposed to unlawful termination laws then?

you might as well just condone rape

 

[alstah]

Well Funkshen, I disagree with current human rights legislation that defines life starting at birth. I believe, as Christopher Hitchens did, that life starts from the moment of conception. We as a society arbitrarily decide to ignore the life growing inside a mother's womb.

Also Crobat, I disagree with the foetus being a 'biological parasite'. Here's a good argument (worth a read, Funkshen), which supports my view: http://www.uffl.org/vol12/pruss12.pdf

I'm pro-life in all circumstances, except when the mother's life is in danger (see Aquinas' principle of double effect). However, unlike some on the religious right, I do not support banning abortion all together. A lot of people in my family (and my friends) have had abortions, and I understand things from their perspective. I think, there needs to be more options for young women, who want to have the baby, but know they can't look after it without giving up their career, can't 'afford' to have it or are ostracised by the father and their own family. As Pope Francis said, we (the right) ought to stop judging women who have abortions, and try and create viable options. This might include more readily accessible adoption services, and also things like 'Pregnancy Alternatives', a centre which operations in Surrey Hills - directly opposite an abortion clinic, and its' more full than the abortion clinic.

"[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." ~ Christopher Hitchens

 

[Kiraken]

Well Funkshen, I disagree with current human rights legislation that defines life starting at birth. I believe, as Christopher Hitchens did, that life starts from the moment of conception. We as a society arbitrarily decide to ignore the life growing inside a mother's womb.

Also Crobat, I disagree with the foetus being a 'biological parasite'. Here's a good argument (worth a read, Funkshen), which supports my view: http://www.uffl.org/vol12/pruss12.pdf

I'm pro-life in all circumstances, except when the mother's life is in danger (see Aquinas' principle of double effect). However, unlike some on the religious right, I do not support banning abortion all together. A lot of people in my family (and my friends) have had abortions, and I understand things from their perspective. I think, there needs to be more options for young women, who want to have the baby, but know they can't look after it without giving up their career, can't 'afford' to have it or are ostracised by the father and their own family. As Pope Francis said, we (the right) ought to stop judging women who have abortions, and try and create viable options. This might include more readily accessible adoption services, and also things like 'Pregnancy Alternatives', a centre which operations in Surrey Hills - directly opposite an abortion clinic, and its' more full than the abortion clinic.

"[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." ~ Christopher Hitchens

No one is really defining an embryo as a non-living organism, it's more a debate as to what type of organism it is. At what point does it gain sufficient "personhood" so to speak that we can classify it as human? What is this "personhood" anyway, what qualifies it as human? Just the potential to become a human being down the track? If you consider it a human from the moment of conception, does it also qualify as a murderer or responsible for manslaughter if the mother dies as a direct result of birth?

It's also important to distinguish between an embryo and a fetus, its not till 8-9 weeks after conception that the embryo even has all the necessary body systems to be classified as a fetus. Iirc this is when most abortions take place, though feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

I guess the reason people believe that a fetus does not have personhood till it is born is because prior to that it is entirely dependent on the mother for it's existence, it doesn't really possess a concept of autonomy or self before that

 

[funkshen]

Well Funkshen, I disagree with current human rights legislation that defines life starting at birth. I believe, as Christopher Hitchens did, that life starts from the moment of conception. We as a society arbitrarily decide to ignore the life growing inside a mother's womb.

that's nice, but this thread is specifically about legislation giving a foetus legal personhood. furthermore, when talking about human rights in the substantive sense (as in rights or duties that humans possess, and that are or should be legally enforceable), the relevant legislation is very relevant indeed.

Also Crobat, I disagree with the foetus being a 'biological parasite'. Here's a good argument (worth a read, Funkshen), which supports my view: http://www.uffl.org/vol12/pruss12.pdf

that's a nice bit of literature, but it's makes a number of unwarranted leaps in logic.

a baby can't be considered part of the mother (or of the father) because it is a unique composition of their DNA? this is a petty syllogism. by that same logic, a donated organ can never be a part of you; transfused blood is not a part of you. furthermore, by this logic, a clone in utero is a part of as you have an identical genetic composition. this is a very convenient argument, made to support the notion that a child in utero is not a parasite, that does nothing to dispense with the arguments to the contrary.

honourable mention to the the impenetrable logic of "you were once an embryo, therefore you never stopped being an embryo!". the author thinks that because an embryo might become a person one day, he in fact is a person. surely there couldn't be any point in between conception and childbirth at which a foetus is substantially developed and demonstrates most of the characteristics of a human being, rather than those of a simple, parasitic organism (you know, such as the ability to feel pain; to survive outside the womb; so on and so forth).

the whole "cartesian dualism" paragraph is a linguistic clusterfuck.
"my wife has never kissed me" - kissing is the physical act of two lips meeting, or lips meeting another part of the body. this is not an absurd paradox that devastates the notion of mind-body dualism (not really relevant anyways).
"my body is simply property" - yes let's dispense with the great philosophical tradition of Locke and others with a handwave, and pretend this is a paradoxical notion!
"If my body were mere property, then the government would in principle have a right, when necessary, to extract a kidney from me as a tax payment" - it's more likely than you think.

i can't really be bothered to engage with this article anymore. i'm more than happy for a Christian, Muslim or Jew to quote their holy text and say that a foetus is sacred. but this author's argument is as ludicrous as Zeno's paradox of motion. i could attack its many convenient assertions one at a time, but the very idea that you can write a treatise about why a foetus is a person and think it's a slam dunk without addressing and engaging with any definition of life is absurd and arrogant. let us also not forget that the author did not, contrary to your assertion, dismiss any notion that a foetus is parasite. this article is emotionally prejudiced and preaches to the choir, and would have been much stronger (read: persuasive) if it was a balanced discussion of relevant arguments, both philosophical and scientific. alas, methinks that was not the intent.

I'm pro-life in all circumstances, except when the mother's life is in danger (see Aquinas' principle of double effect). However, unlike some on the religious right, I do not support banning abortion all together. A lot of people in my family (and my friends) have had abortions, and I understand things from their perspective. I think, there needs to be more options for young women, who want to have the baby, but know they can't look after it without giving up their career, can't 'afford' to have it or are ostracised by the father and their own family. As Pope Francis said, we (the right) ought to stop judging women who have abortions, and try and create viable options. This might include more readily accessible adoption services, and also things like 'Pregnancy Alternatives', a centre which operations in Surrey Hills - directly opposite an abortion clinic, and its' more full than the abortion clinic.

viable alternatives to abortion sound great, but forgive me for being irredeemably cynical about 1) the charity and compassion of catholics, and 2) any success the catholic church might have if it continues to refuse to endorse and educate people on safe sex practices, particularly on the use of condoms (you know, like a whole bunch of Western catholics are doing).

nice to know that 'Pregnancy Alternatives' is opposite an abortion clinic - if the alternatives don't work, an abortion isn't far away!

"[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." ~ Christopher Hitchens

the rights question does come up. and we say that, to a point (e.g. third trimester), the mother's rights trump the rights of a foetus. the question doesn't come up, but we've moved on.

furthermore, an enemy of an enemy is not your friend. it seems very odd for a Catholic to regurgitate Hitchens (of course, on the only point of contention you might agree with him on). Hitchens thought that abortions were regrettable and, in an ideal world, would not be performed. however, cognisant of the underlying causes of abortion (religious propaganda and the irresponsibility of religious institutions, lack of safe sex practices and education, poverty and crime), he never advocated for banning abortion; for instance, he supported Roe v Wade.


edit: i can't stress enough how utterly shallow that article you linked is. it doesn't even touch on the issues of abortion being morally equivalent to murder, spontaneous abortion, self-awareness.