Victorian Abortion Laws Kinda Contradict Themselves - Page 5

sane-one · #41 (**permalink**) 01-07-2010, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

I doubt it very much. based on the available evidence, a 19 week foetus in non viable, so therefore is not legally going to be considered as part of the road toll.

to the mother (parents) at 19 weeks most likely it is a baby - not a foetus - and is therefore already a person.

the issue is not about abortion, its based on the fact that the law has to draw a line somewhere, and in this case - with respect to an accidental death - its at viability.

The judge would have looked at precedent and medical opinion in this instance.

I said for lack of better words because I could tell the conversation wasn't focusing specifically on abortion; I was just using abortion terminology for brevity. I could see people who count the fetus as a human would give him charges for some kind of man slaughter and that would sort of mirror the sentiment that pro-life activists have about abortion (and vice versa for pro-choice people). I suppose I could replace "life" and "choice" type interpretations with with really long descriptive phrases that more accurately pertain to the subject, but I'm too lazy. Sorry for the confusion.

clockwork71 · #42 (**permalink**) 01-18-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

At least from what I can see.

Just the other day, a young woman, who was 34 weeks pregnant with a baby girl (an IVF baby, much wanted by her parents) was in a terrible car accident. She was harmed by a speeding driver - the guy cut in front of another car, and it rammed into her. She was seriously injured, and her unborn child died.

Now here's what I don't get. The death of the unborn child was counted as part of the road toll - but the driver wasn't charged with anything relating to the death of the fetus - just dangerous driving.

How about dangerous driving causing death? Is the fetus a person or not? Only people die in car crashes, don't they? You cant count a non person as part of the road toll. That would be stupid - so why count the death of this fetus, but not charge the driver with anything relating to the death of a perfectly viable baby girl?

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming to be any less pro choice, I just thought about this for ages last night, and I can't figure it out. Either the fetus was a person or it wasnt. Non people don't die in car accidents, so it has to be a person for it was part of the road toll.
If it is a person, then it's death should also bring charges against the man who was responsible.

US abortion laws contradict themselves, and it looks like our stupid laws do, too.

You forget - the US is 50 states, and depending on where this happened, that fetus would be considered a killing. It would more than likely be called "Negligent homicide", and if the driver had been drinking, it's even worse.

Makedde · #43 (**permalink**) 01-18-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clockwork71

You forget - the US is 50 states, and depending on where this happened, that fetus would be considered a killing. It would more than likely be called "Negligent homicide", and if the driver had been drinking, it's even worse.

The OP discusses the laws in Australia. We don't have fetal homicide laws here. The case would be different had this happened in the US, though.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abortion: Restrictive laws & Inconsistent Opinions	E_Pluribus_Venom	Abortion	39	12-09-2009 06:07 PM
Victorian Man 'could be worse than Fritzl'	Sayf Udeen	Latest World News	5	09-18-2009 03:19 AM
Victorian 'ghost' picked up by Google Street View	Ostap Bender	Religion	8	04-02-2009 09:31 AM
Circumventing anti-abortion laws	OKgrannie	Abortion	43	03-24-2009 05:12 AM
Australia's NEW Abortion Laws	Makedde	Abortion	94	08-27-2008 04:55 AM