Rev Nile's Zoe' law passed! Feminazis frothing at the mouth.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Byron, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. Byron

    Byron Guest

    Congratulations to the rev Fred Nile and the Liberal govt for passing Zoe's law in the lower house.

    The legislation came about when a drunk driver hit a woman resulting in the death of her unborn baby and he couldn't be charged with murder. The law is aimed at providing legal recognition of a fetus and therefore allowing people that harm them to be prosecuted. It does not apply to medical procedures with a woman's consent.

    Very little has been reported on this heroic attempt by Fred Nile to protect human life. Wish there were more politicians with his integrity and family values.

    Discussion here:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/21/12/58/zoe-s-law-passes-the-nsw-lower-house

    And the predictable response by the feminist lobby supported of course by the greens and labour:

    http://fcollective.wordpress.com/20...-passed-in-the-lower-house-of-nsw-parliament/
     
  2. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
  3. aleks

    aleks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Karl-Marx-Allee
    I could not imagine what it would be like to go through such a horrible trauma as this lady and her partner has gone through. However, I fail to see how this should be classified has 'murder'.
     
  4. hiho

    hiho Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,955
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    South Brisbane
    Can of worms
     
  5. tozak

    tozak Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Australia
    Can I have a prostitute charged with murder if she makes me wear a condom?
     
  6. trew

    trew Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbern
    You should be charged for murder for wanking then
     
  7. tozak

    tozak Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Australia
    All jokes aside I just don't think that our legal system has the right nor ability to determine what the specific developmental stage of life would constitute qualia aware conciseness. So where one second you have destruction of property and next you have involuntary grievous bodily harm of a fetus? give me a break!
     
  8. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    In nature, birth is the event that marks the transition from foetus to child.

    The wonders of modern medicine can push that transition back using chemical inducement or Cesarian section, but it ultimately stops at the point where the foetus can't survive being outside the female's uterus. Any earlier than the third trimester and the chance of survival drops very substantially.

    Unfortunately, the survival rate of a premature birth at 20 weeks - which is when this law says there is a person capable of being murdered - is zero.

    Not that I'm unsympathetic to the issue, but this law will create a lot of problem further down the line (even with the amendments) since it essentially re-defines person-hood and does so right at the extreme margins i.e. where no baby has ever been born and lived. That's a big deal and has huge ramifications. The fact that the time-frames appear to be completely arbitrary rather than based on a consensus of professional medical opinion doesn't make things any better either.

    That said, I don't have a uterus so I'm happy to defer to people who do on this issue.
     
  9. boyracer

    boyracer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Interestingly enough Ben Elton wrote about this kind of law in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Other_Eden_(novel). Obviously his was more over the top but the concept was similar.

    I do find it odd this law was deemed necessary. As I understand it the current law takes into account hurt to an unborn foetus already when the judge is doing the sentencing although it is not a separate crime by itself. So it seems somewhat surplus to requirements and has the potential for a lot of unintended consequences I suspect.

    When there were so many law experts/institutions vocally against it I really hope it is struck down in the senate so it can at least be discussed in more detail.
     
  10. DanielM

    DanielM Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbourne
    ....1 billion counts of murder
     
  11. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Unborn human beings always enjoyed the protection of law up until it was taken away from them by the abortion laws.

    Legalised abortion (the protection from criminal charges of people who perform abortions) was the moment the law became contradictory, not when Zoe's law was passed. The is the clawing back of rights for the unborn, which were taken away by the suposed 'rights' advocates.

    Its just the old animal farm cliche for the left - some people are more equal than others. We really need to oppose abortion laws because (laying aside all religious and ideological arguments for a sec) it just simply does not make any logical sense, it is absurd logically.

    If the legal system has lost its logical foundation, it simply becomes a vehicle for exhurting power over people. When the unborn had their human status taken away - that is when the Australian system of law took a step over the line of sanity into the world of the insane.

    Its the same with EUTHANASIA - the protection of people who are willing to murder (active causation of death of another human being)

    Abortion needs people who are willing to murder
    Euthanasia also needs people who are willing to murder
     
  12. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Trew - you obviously have never really thought through that silly statement. And its that type of ridiculous reasoning that makes our society or (its majority of members) proovably stupid.
     
  13. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Look up the Latin word 'Foetus' - you just said birth is the event that marks the transition from 'bringing forth a child' to child

    There is no such thing as a 'foetus' or 'fetus'... its a process yes - but even in the word - its always a child.
     
  14. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Oh by the way

    The abortion laws in Victoria and Tasmania - abortion is legal for any reasn up till birth. After birth its illegal to abort.... see how this law is already ridiculous? As if it magically changes outside the womb.... must be a miricle
     
  15. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Well done you have hit the Nile on the head!!!

    The introduction of the inconsitency is to HIGHLIGHT the FACT that abortion is murder. well done you figured out the strategy!
    Dont you see, the first step to changing the abortion laws back to reclasifying unborn babies as human - is a baby step process, one law at a time.
     
  16. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm aware of the etymology and you are correct: the origin of the word "foetus" describes the process of "bringing forth", not the conclusion i.e. birth.

    This means that until a child has been brought forth, there is no child.

    If there was always a child then the pregnancy would be unnecessary, would it not?
     
  17. boyracer

    boyracer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16

    Silver Sanchez - what is your position on abortion where the mother is at serious risk of harm/death if the birth was to go ahead as normal and the child also had a high possibility of death during birth or being born seriously disabled? Would you still consider that murder if the foetus was aborted?

    I can't say I agree with you that abortion it is murder. What right do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

    Euthanasia also is not murder I would think in most cases (at least where consent is involved). Murder is killing someone against their will. If they agree to it how is it murder? Forced Euthanasia is a different story altogether of course.

    Also, why is the taking of a human life so sacred but the killing of other animals is ok? Seems highly inconsistent to me.
     
  18. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    No - i dont agree. That is the modern usage of the word. Im not a postmodernist - I dont like making 'usage' substitute for 'definition'.
    The definition of 'gay' is still carefree and happy - but most people who use it mean something else
     
  19. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Abortion is the intent of purposeful killing of the baby in the womb. The situation you have described is not abortion, because they do everything they can to save the life of the baby, not just throw that baby into the bin.

    As for your 'rights' to 'tell a woman' - nobody is telling a woman anything. Abortion and euthanasia requires a person who is medically and legally protected from prosecution. EVERYBODY is told what they can do with their body. I worked in mental health, if a person is self-mutilating - we take them to hospital and treat the issue (focus on preserving life), if someone is suicidal, we treat it (again preserving life). Neither of those people usually WANT the help - but we on many occasions 'section 12' them - involuntary. Same with forms of drug and alcohol rehab. The only reason that is less previlent these days is because the economics dont support it.

    All the arguments for abortion and euthanasia self destruct when carried through logically
     
  20. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Your last point is a problem with the fundamental logical law of 'Identity'.

    Its fine if you dont ascribe my desired value to humans - just make sure your consistant and make that carry through to its logical end. Why save a beached whale who has beached themself 2 times already and not treat a terminally ill person with depression, fear or loss of hope (all treatable diagnosis). All it needs is someone who cares.
     

Share This Page