 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
A car crash causes the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn child, a violent attack on a pregnant woman causes a miscarriage, yet in both cases the death of the foetus is never taken into account unless the foetus is over 24 weeks old.
Child destruction law was passed in 1929 (Preservation of Infant Life bill) and was an effort to combat backstreet abortions yet in these cases it's impossible to implement. Is this a consequence of the overlap with our current laws on abortion which state that if the child dies before it's viable it can't be considered?
It's about time the law was updated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"That would please the anti abortion lobby! I can't see it happening. "
That's the problem, i'm not anti abortion but i can see where the two conflict. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"That would please the anti abortion lobby! I can't see it happening.
That's the problem, i'm not anti abortion but i can see where the two conflict."
I also don't think it's acceptable to allow such instances to go unpunished simply because the law doesn't want to be seen as being hypocritical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Laws are usually created with specific issues in mind. Child destruction laws were about back street abortions which were often just as dangerous for the mother as the foetus.
They were not really designed to protect the life of the foetus but to try and ensure medical personnel carried them out. And to try and limit the availability of abortions no doubt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A car crash causes the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn child, a violent attack on a pregnant woman causes a miscarriage, yet in both cases the death of the foetus is never taken into account unless the foetus is over 24 weeks old.
Child destruction law was passed in 1929 (Preservation of Infant Life bill) and was an effort to combat backstreet abortions yet in these cases it's impossible to implement. Is this a consequence of the overlap with our current laws on abortion which state that if the child dies before it's viable it can't be considered?
It's about time the law was updated."
To what end? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A car crash causes the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn child, a violent attack on a pregnant woman causes a miscarriage, yet in both cases the death of the foetus is never taken into account unless the foetus is over 24 weeks old.
Child destruction law was passed in 1929 (Preservation of Infant Life bill) and was an effort to combat backstreet abortions yet in these cases it's impossible to implement. Is this a consequence of the overlap with our current laws on abortion which state that if the child dies before it's viable it can't be considered?
It's about time the law was updated."
It does need to be updated. Not least because babies born at 23 weeks can now survive.
My own 25 weeker survived premature birth 13 years ago so an update is long overdue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"A car crash causes the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn child, a violent attack on a pregnant woman causes a miscarriage, yet in both cases the death of the foetus is never taken into account unless the foetus is over 24 weeks old.
Child destruction law was passed in 1929 (Preservation of Infant Life bill) and was an effort to combat backstreet abortions yet in these cases it's impossible to implement. Is this a consequence of the overlap with our current laws on abortion which state that if the child dies before it's viable it can't be considered?
It's about time the law was updated.
To what end?"
That the loss of life of an unborn child should always be taken into account, obviously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The death of the foetus would be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Especially if the perp knew the woman was pregnant. "
Possibly at the discretion of the judge but it's not actual law. Pregnancy is fraught enough and there's never any guarantee that it will always go to term but the loss to the family of so much promise due to the actions of another, deliberate or otherwise, surely means that it should be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Either way, the law as it stands suggests to expectant mothers that the loss of their unborn child is of little consequence and that just can't be right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It sounds like you're arguing for a legal position that defines when a foetus is granted full citizen rights, but that is something we as a society can not agree on. Is it at the point of conception, viability or delivery? There are lots of passionate arguments for all of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
