20 weeks is not viable - and I do not think they have considered the real implications of this because if this law passes every "Micro premie" under 22 weeks will HAVE to have full treatment - and that is just plain cruel beyond belief as the skin is not fully formed at that age
The problem is that it doesn't matter what the intent of the politicians was, judges decide what laws mean and since politicians usually write really shockingly vague, or contradictory laws, you never know how it's going to be enforced until it goes before a court.
Yes but until then many medical officers will have their hands tied. Despite what pro-lifers will have you believe there ARE situations where we have to decide to save the mother or lose both
If it is not able to survive outside the womb on its own without life support it is only a potential child. 30 weeks and you can start saying they might survive and could possibly be viewed as a living person.
I have never seen one instance, when crusading do-gooders EVER consider the "real" implications for anything, besides bullying others to fulfilling their own moral imperatives. These are the types of women that would revert our society back into the dark ages.
Very well thought out and informative reply as usual, it's recess I gather. Once again, NOTHING on the topic of the thread.
Medical procedures are said to be exempt in an amendment. 20 weeks seems early. How terribly sad even talking about this
I have never seen one instance of you putting forward a good reply. What do-gooders are you referring to in particular. The ones who are behind the bill or the ones against it? What is the "moral imperative they are fulfilling? Are you for or against the bill? What are the "real" implications of this bill, or if it was not passed? Do you have an opinion or just here to make a nuisance of yourself. To comment properly we need to have medical knowledge of the viability of the fetus.
I have never seen one instance of you putting forward a good reply. What do-gooders are you referring to in particular. The ones who are behind the bill or the ones against it? What is the "moral imperative they are fulfilling? Are you for or against the bill? What are the "real" implications of this bill, or if it was not passed? Do you have an opinion or just here to make a nuisance of yourself. To comment properly we need to have medical knowledge of the viability of the fetus.
I would bet money, that not one of these cretins has ever had a premmie baby or knows any one who did, but they are still willing to force their moral imperative on everyone else who has to suffer; including the baby.
I believe according to Queensland law you are not a living person until you have taken a breath. That sounds fair enough to me.
I think the most important thing to see here is the actual wording of the legislation BUT as the problem is for crimes committed against pregnant mothers and the fact that medical procedures require consent is predominant in the issues. In court one must show the intent, so it would be premature to deduce what would occur should this or that occurred without that intent. Remember, the line has to be draw somewhere and were you draw that line will always be in contention. Governments make blanket laws that need to be interpreted in court for individual situations so to assume anything of how this will affect each and every case is considerably useless. One must thank the government for setting the term and not procrastinating over the entire issue as they could have because they are still trying to debate when a life exists.
Not quite right actually old chap https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCode.pdf page 130 and page 180
Page 130 and 180 do not tell you anything about a living person. If you look at the definitions you will find there is only a definition of an adult, being a person over 18 years. Look at section 313 (1) & (2). the section does not give an age for an unborn child, it would appear an unborn child for the purpose of this section exists from the moment of conception. But there is more, my earlier statement about taking a breath is wrong, the baby doesn't have to take a breath after all. 292 When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-string is severed or not. The two sections appear to contradict one another.
Actually you were more right - there is a section that defines when a child becomes a child and that is when it has been born. But Queensland, on the books, has the most repressive abortion laws in Australia And our abortion rate is the SAME as every other states
section 313 is actually a bit ambiguous because 313 (1) says when a women is about to deliver a child bot then 313 (2) just says 'a pregnant women' and a women is pregnant from conception. Section 292 is quite straight forward, you have to be delivered before you can be killed. Bloody contradictory all right!!
Which is why I ask those who are opposed to abortion to craft a law - one that WOULD work. So far the choice seems to be so repressive that we have tragedies like that poor woman in Ireland (and the hundreds in South America) who die because the pregnancy has gone horribly wrong and they cannot have an abortion or we have a "health" clause which makes the law ineffective
Well, for me i don't think the point of being a 'real person' begins when you take a breath. Short of that, what difference is there from 2 days prior? Virtually none. I would argue that being a person would occur at the point where it is statistically reasonably likely that the child would survive outside the womb. Bowerbird would know roughly when that would be.
Roughly 24 weeks - micro premies have survived at as little as 22 weeks but usually that is because we have been able to give the mother some corticosteriods to help mature the lungs and even then it is around one in a hundred thousand actually survive - which means for ever one baby that survives one hundred thousand die of brain haemorrhage, infection, being too bloody little………. But MOST, the vast majority of abortions done in late term are for foetal abnormality incompatible with life. Fortunately with ultrasound we can detect even those earlier now but there are still those that do not show up until very late when the amniocentesis is done and you find the baby has some horrific genetic anomaly
I should think that pro-life or pro-choice, we could agree that if the mother has not chosen to abort, it was her intention that the child be born, and that any drunken SOB who drives into the side of their cars so be maxed out for taking that choice from others over whom he had no rights.
As long as this law remains specific to those circumstances I am fine with it. It is when the hysterical pro-lifers try to apply a law like this to a fertilised egg that we have difficulties. Well at least I do. To be honest I am rather proud of my fellow Aussies on here - they have shown concern for the suffering of the infant if it were forced to treatment that would be inappropriate. That does not mean we are happy to "kill off" micro-premies but I think we are more pragmatic about the whole life and death issue that surrounds this than many in the USA
