Unborn babies given recognition in new laws

[themacedonian]

http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/unborn...120226-1tw4n.h

Causing the death of an unborn child will be viewed similar to murder by courts as part of new laws the state government wants to bring in.

Attorney General Christian Porter said the proposed foetal homicide laws would strengthen penalties that apply in cases of violence against pregnant women which resulted in the death of the unborn child.
Currently there are no specific provisions which require courts to take into account the death of an unborn child when sentencing offenders for assaults or other unlawful acts committed against pregnant women.

Mr Porter said it was intended that the laws would create a new offence of causing death or grievous bodily harm to an unborn child through an unlawful assault on its mother.
This offence would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Under the proposed laws where the unborn child died following an assault on a pregnant woman and where the offender intended to cause serious harm to the unborn child, courts would be required to impose life imprisonment in all but exceptional circumstances - the same penalty which applies for murder.
The laws would also include dangerous driving offences which caused the death of an unborn child.
Such an offence would carry a maximum imprisonment term of 20 years.
Where there was a history of domestic violence against the mother by the offender prior to them harming or causing the death of an unborn child, the offender would face a presumption of imprisonment.

"The Government's proposed laws reflect our view that any act of violence against a mother-to-be is an especially serious offence," Mr Porter said.
"Where an offender causes serious injury or death to an unborn child, the law must properly reflect the extreme emotional trauma such a loss can cause to the mother."
Mr Porter said fresh consideration of WA's laws in relation to unborn children had been prompted by recent cases which had resulted in strong advocacy for change.
Just this month Matthew Silvestro was fined $8000 and disqualified from driving for two years after driving head on into another vehicle with his former partner, who was pregnant at the time, in the car.
The pair's then-two-year-old child who was also in the car survived the crash but the unborn child Silvestro's former partner, Vanessa De Bari, was carrying died.
If the proposed laws had been implemented, Mr Silvestro may have been given jail time.
Mr Porter said the proposed legislation would not affect laws relating to abortion.
"This ensures these changes will not affect a mother's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy."

[Ordie]

Rightist care more about the unborn than the ones that are born.Especially those who are born into poverty crime ridden areas, with no medical attention, poor education, and a cycle of violence.If they really hate abortion, why don't they do everything in their power to make it irrelevant?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free pre/post natal medical care for the child and mother up to 5 years old?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose streamlined adoption process?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free contraception?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose expanded *** education?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose the abolition of the death penalty?

[themacedonian]

Rightist care more about the unborn than the ones that are born.Especially those who are born into poverty crime ridden areas, with no medical attention, poor education, and a cycle of violence.If they really hate abortion, why don't they do everything in their power to make it irrelevant?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free pre/post natal medical care for the child and mother up to 5 years old?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose streamlined adoption process?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free contraception?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose expanded *** education?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose the abolition of the death penalty?

At the end of the article:

Mr Porter said the proposed legislation would not affect laws relating to abortion.
"This ensures these changes will not affect a mother's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy.

Abortionist claim foetus is not alive therefore it is ok so this law goes into the opposite direction. This is the reason I found it interesting.
If one cares for it it is alive if not it is not alive.

[wwjs]

So mother has right to abort baby, even though they just said that "causing death of unborn baby is murder"? What kind of fvcking sense does it make?

[bravosixniner]

Rightist care more about the unborn than the ones that are born.Especially those who are born into poverty crime ridden areas, with no medical attention, poor education, and a cycle of violence.If they really hate abortion, why don't they do everything in their power to make it irrelevant?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free pre/post natal medical care for the child and mother up to 5 years old?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose streamlined adoption process?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free contraception?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose expanded *** education?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose the abolition of the death penalty?

Ordie, remember now this is America. Its better to not promote contraception, because premartial *** is a sin (executing prisoners isnt) and punish those sinners with babies. And then we can complain about welfare and crime rates. It all comes full circle my friend.

In other news I recently read about us being a welfare state on par with Europe if you compare tax breaks we give to everyone and everything.

The U.S. does not have a significantly smaller welfare state than the European nations. We’re just better at hiding it. The Europeans provide welfare provisions through direct government payments. We do it through the back door via tax breaks.

For example, in Europe, governments offer health care directly. In the U.S., we give employers a gigantic tax exemption to do the same thing. European governments offer public childcare. In the U.S., we have child tax credits. In Europe, governments subsidize favored industries. We do the same thing by providing special tax deductions and exemptions for everybody from ethanol producers to Nascar track owners.

These tax expenditures are hidden but huge. Budget experts Donald Marron and Eric Toder added up all the spending-like tax preferences and found that, in 2007, they amounted to $600 billion. If you had included those preferences as government spending, then the federal government would have actually been one-fifth larger than it appeared.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently calculated how much each affluent country spends on social programs. When you include both direct spending and tax expenditures, the U.S. has one of the biggest welfare states in the world. We rank behind Sweden and ahead of Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and Canada. Social spending in the U.S. is far above the organization’s average.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/op...rope.html?_r=1

[Lugiahua]

Rightist care more about the unborn than the ones that are born.Especially those who are born into poverty crime ridden areas, with no medical attention, poor education, and a cycle of violence.If they really hate abortion, why don't they do everything in their power to make it irrelevant?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free pre/post natal medical care for the child and mother up to 5 years old?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose streamlined adoption process?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose free contraception?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose expanded *** education?Why don't the Pro-lifers propose the abolition of the death penalty?

I see a lot of generalization over there

[Odd]

I believe a person's view on abortion depends somewhat where they live. In some parts of the world the population densities are much higher, while others places might have one person per square mile. While an effective means of population control, abortion can have potential problems as well: In some countries with mandatory population control there is ***-selective abortion. As a result, the gender imbalance becomes more ****ounced in a society where males are given priority/status.

Generally abortion should be a decision between the man and woman, whatever decision they make, they bear and accept the consequences. As someone who is not involved, it would not be proper to stick my noise into their business. However there should be some limits to prevent the problem mentioned above.

[Chanan]

I fail to see how this will not be defined by the courts. Porter may no intend the law to effect abortion law but he is trying to have a bet both ways. If the law is passed it will be interpreted by the courts. There is an uncomfortable debate as to when there is a seperate life, zygote...foetus...baby? This law will likely lead to defining this presence of life and thereby perhaps further limit the point a termination can be undertaken.

[Winger]

In other news I recently read about us being a welfare state on par with Europe if you compare free money we give to everyone and everything.

There, it's fixed now. It would be a tax break if they were getting money back that was taken as tax. But, they're getting other peoples money based on income and number of kids. Free money.

[West Texican]

So what it is saying it that it is illegal to beat an unborn child to death but okay to kill it if you do it nicely?

[Spacepope]

So what it is saying it that it is illegal to beat an unborn child to death but okay to kill it if you do it nicely?

I have no problem with this, especially if every single stillbirth and miscarriage is investigated as a potential homicide. That'll be efficient. After all, is getting beaten to death with liquor really any different? The conservative nanny state must watch over you.

[Hollis]

Ordie nice off topic rant.

TOPIC for those you have a reading problem; It is Assault. When a women chooses to carry a baby to term and she is assaulted or harmed in a way where it causes harm or death to the baby, that is what is being covered.

[Hollis]

I have no problem with this, especially if every single stillbirth and miscarriage is investigated as a potential homicide. That'll be efficient. After all, is getting beaten to death with liquor really any different? The conservative nanny state must watch over you.

I gather those who see the big bad wolf in government have a problem understanding what is being done. There is a bases for this. The very bases of tort law is fixing something that is broken. Just as those would argue on the woman's right to choice, carry a baby to term is also one of those choices. Maybe in your mind that is just a parasite and of no importance, I would suggest meeting people who have chosen to have children on how they view it. Again it is a personal issue. A person makes a choice, shouldn't that choice be respected?

Having a baby is also about the process to do so, health cost etc. No different than if someone choose to destory your car, they should be held responsible. IIRC, there are already laws that probably cover this. Drunk driver hits a car, causing serious injuries to the passengers. Are you saying they should get a free ride? The more people the drunk harms they will get a discount? Law special this week Kill 3 only get punished for 2 or 1?

BTW, do you know much about child and spousal abuse? Our Conservative nanny state is involved in that too.

[wwjs]

TOPIC for those you have a reading problem; It is Assault. When a women chooses to carry a baby to term and she is assaulted or harmed in a way where it causes harm or death to the baby, that is what is being covered.

But in case of fatal assault and abortion the result is the same: dead baby. They say that accidental (I'm not trying to protect person who did it) killing of baby is murder but on the other hand planned killing (abortion) is ok. If they treat unborn baby as a "human" then why mother can't kill 2 year old child? Because it would be simply murder. But she still can kill unborn child. I don't want to sound as pro-life fanatic because I'm not, but to me abortion is just premeditated murder

[Hollis]

wwjs, end result in Law may not have a baring on the case. It is the elements that were fulfilled that resulted in that end result.

Manslaughter and murder, the end is the same. Manslaughter does not have the elements of premeditation and the intent to murder a person. If we are going to discuss end results than this will just be a pro/anti abortion thread and we have been down that road already many times.

Anti-abortion advocates will see this as not going far enough and pro-abortion people will see this as going too far. The issues is simple, it is not about abortion. It is a about assigning a penalty to some one who either by accident or intent assaults/causes harm to a mother carrying a baby to term. Reason should prevail. Maybe it is too difficult to bifurcate the issue.