katpaws Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Channel 9 is doing a story on Foetal Personhood Bill (formally Zoe's Law) tonight and running a poll.https://www.facebook.com/9News/photos/a.143997715648074/4145567278824411/Why did I look at the comments????There are people who think the fetuses are in stomachs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeekums-the-elf Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Not this shit againWhile the base is understandable It will be abused to as anti-abortion b.s. against women Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucrezia Borgia Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 100% agree Squeeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly_F Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 The major issue in giving a foetus some kind of personhood to allow this kind of law is that it will used against women to undermine women’s rights to bodily autonomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 But the thing is, murder is illegal, and technically that means it's illegal to kill someone without a lawful excuse. So if it genuinely was an accident (an accident that couldn't be prevented, not one caused by negligence) then the perpetrator isn't guilty of murder. Or if you're a soldier at war, or you're assisting dying under the legal provisions. So it should be relatively easy to write a law that says something like "it's unlawful to cause the death of a foetus in utero, unless by a doctor for the purposes of terminating a pregnancy". But worded a bit better than that. Wouldn't that be possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplekitty Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 It should be determined by damage done to the mother by loss of the pregnancy,Otherwise it is a legal can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caitiri Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 [mention]Lurker[/mention] but what if a mother drank too much and fell down some stairs Or took drugs, didn't eat properly or tried to commit suicide.Ignored drs advice for bedrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucrezia Borgia Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 agree PK - the laws of assault and battery are fit for purpose. focus on the injury to the mother.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 It should be determined by damage done to the mother by loss of the pregnancy,Otherwise it is a legal can of worms. It is - currently the law deals with it like an assault/injury to the pregnant woman. But people want to be able to see the name they had for their child in the legal charges, and to count it as an additional loss when the mother dies. I can understand the emotional side of it and I think it should be doable without giving every other foetus personhood. I couldn't be more pro-choice/pro-abortion, but I can see why people want the loss of a wanted child to be more recognised than it currently is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katpaws Posted February 17, 2021 Author Share Posted February 17, 2021 I think @Lurker it is far more complicated than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly_F Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 But the thing is, murder is illegal, and technically that means it's illegal to kill someone without a lawful excuse. So if it genuinely was an accident (an accident that couldn't be prevented, not one caused by negligence) then the perpetrator isn't guilty of murder. Or if you're a soldier at war, or you're assisting dying under the legal provisions. So it should be relatively easy to write a law that says something like "it's unlawful to cause the death of a foetus in utero, unless by a doctor for the purposes of terminating a pregnancy". But worded a bit better than that. Wouldn't that be possible? You don’t see the possible issues with that? You drunk early in pregnancy before you knew or ate something that is on the no list or you chose to ride a motorbike or go woodcutting or don’t follow your doctors orders exactly and you have a miscarriage or stillborn - you could be held liable for the death of the foetus.If it was as simple as wording it correctly, this law would have been finalised years ago but it’s not as there are so so many ways this could be abused by people who want to strip women’s rights away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplekitty Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 @Lurker but what if a mother drank too much and fell down some stairs Or took drugs, didn't eat properly or tried to commit suicide.Ignored drs advice for bedrest. Smoking cigarettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucrezia Borgia Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 it is an emotional topic but emotion is never a good basis for enacting a law IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landry Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I never quite know how to feel about this..If Zoe's law was an actual law it doesn't retroactively make you guilty of murder/manslaughter for having had an abortion. I think they can be separated.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 @Lurker but what if a mother drank too much and fell down some stairs Or took drugs, didn't eat properly or tried to commit suicide.Ignored drs advice for bedrest. It's not easy. And if there is no way to manage it without affecting our access to abortions, I'd rather keep abortions. But a slippery slope argument is usually flawed. There should be ways to protect our own rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplekitty Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 In an ideal world where there are not lobbyists and politicians with agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Recommendations about how to be healthy in pregnancy are only recommendations. Plenty of women have healthy babies after drinking and smoking and taking drugs and riding motorbikes. I don't know what woodcutting is - like literally cutting down wood? Is that bad for a pregnant woman?It comes back to only being legally liable if you could be absolutely sure your actions would reasonably lead to a particular outcome - if something isn't optimal but has variable results, like smoking or drinking, then it wouldn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly_F Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I never quite know how to feel about this..If Zoe's law was an actual law it doesn't retroactively make you guilty of murder/manslaughter for having had an abortion. I think they can be separated.. Generally true but it certainly could make you guilty going forward for an abortion, a miscarriage, a stillbirth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly_F Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Recommendations about how to be healthy in pregnancy are only recommendations. Plenty of women have healthy babies after drinking and smoking and taking drugs and riding motorbikes. I don't know what woodcutting is - like literally cutting down wood? Is that bad for a pregnant woman?It comes back to only being legally liable if you could be absolutely sure your actions would reasonably lead to a particular outcome - if something isn't optimal but has variable results, like smoking or drinking, then it wouldn't apply. Oh what a life you have led to not know what woodcutting is but yer it’s cutting down wood for the woodheater!! I was really just listing things I remember doing pregnant that I was questioned on. Of course plenty of women do lots of less than good things while pregnant and it’s all good but that doesn’t mean that laws like this couldn’t be used to pin a women for her choices for the death of a foetus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landry Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I'm not comfortable with the thought of "keeping abortions" over legally recognising the death of a wanted child..It seems to me like we should be trying harder on this issue. Or is it just me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Recommendations about how to be healthy in pregnancy are only recommendations. Plenty of women have healthy babies after drinking and smoking and taking drugs and riding motorbikes. I don't know what woodcutting is - like literally cutting down wood? Is that bad for a pregnant woman?It comes back to only being legally liable if you could be absolutely sure your actions would reasonably lead to a particular outcome - if something isn't optimal but has variable results, like smoking or drinking, then it wouldn't apply. Oh what a life you have led to not know what woodcutting is but yer it’s cutting down wood for the woodheater!! Of course plenty of women do lots of less than good things while pregnant and it’s all good but that doesn’t mean that laws like this couldn’t be used to pin a women for her choices for the death of a foetus. Yeah and like I said, if the law could punish the woman, it's better not to have it. But I can see why someone whose partner and unborn children have all died in car crash isn't happy with "my wife was injured and killed". He feels like more than one member of his family has died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I'm not comfortable with the thought of "keeping abortions" over legally recognising the death of a wanted child..It seems to me like we should be trying harder on this issue. Or is it just me? Well, if the alternative is to lose our access to abortions so that we can legally recognise the death of a wanted child, then that's terrible. Safe access to abortions always has to remain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly_F Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Recommendations about how to be healthy in pregnancy are only recommendations. Plenty of women have healthy babies after drinking and smoking and taking drugs and riding motorbikes. I don't know what woodcutting is - like literally cutting down wood? Is that bad for a pregnant woman?It comes back to only being legally liable if you could be absolutely sure your actions would reasonably lead to a particular outcome - if something isn't optimal but has variable results, like smoking or drinking, then it wouldn't apply. Oh what a life you have led to not know what woodcutting is but yer it’s cutting down wood for the woodheater!! Of course plenty of women do lots of less than good things while pregnant and it’s all good but that doesn’t mean that laws like this couldn’t be used to pin a women for her choices for the death of a foetus. Yeah and like I said, if the law could punish the woman, it's better not to have it. But I can see why someone whose partner and unborn children have all died in car crash isn't happy with "my wife was injured and killed". He feels like more than one member of his family has died. I can see why too... I just think the risks are far too great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucrezia Borgia Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 if foetal personhood was granted no doctor would be willing to perform a termination. the danger of the woman being coerced by fanatics to claim the consent she signed was coerced and it was actually assault and caused the death of her child that she really did want. the laws of assault and battery are adequate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landry Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I'm not comfortable with the thought of "keeping abortions" over legally recognising the death of a wanted child..It seems to me like we should be trying harder on this issue. Or is it just me? Well, if the alternative is to lose our access to abortions so that we can legally recognise the death of a wanted child, then that's terrible. Safe access to abortions always has to remain. But why not both? Is there a reason the law can't be changed to exclude legally performed abortions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.