But her proposed new law is a breathtaking example of cognitive dissonance and sheer, naked demand for her rules to be applied only in the circumstances that favour her...
Two things happened this year. The initial bill was introduced into parliament – without any consultation with me or my family – by reverend Fred Nile. We are pro-choice, and did not want any law to possibly infringe on women’s rights. So my partner and I worked decided to work with our local MP, Chris Spence, to write a law we could support. Zoe’s law is that law.If you’re wondering how any such law could possibly hope to straddle the finer nuances likely to affect this sort of case, well, wonder no more. It doesn’t even bother:
Many of the hypothetical scenarios floating around by women's lobbies being worried about Zoe's law being a threat to abortion rights are simply not true. Zoe's law would not affect a women’s right to choose to end her pregnancy. It would not affect any actions taken by a disabled mother or underage mother. It would not affect the sale nor use of the abortion pill RU486. It cannot, in any shape or form, charge the mother. It exempts anything done by the mother or with her consent. Even if a mother committed a crime which as a result would harm her baby, she would still not be charged. It also exempts medical procedures and medical professionals assisting a pregnant woman.In other words, it's a bill that seeks to codify into the law the idea that an unborn child is some kind of 'Schroedinger's Baby' - a formless clump of cells when it suits the mother to demand to be rid of it, and yet simultaneously a fully formed person with rights when the mother doesn't.
What's that..? The father?
Zoe's law works well with existing legislation, and I believe it would help give victims closure and also ensure the offender takes responsibility for their actions.Unless the offender is the mother. Then, all bets are off.
It is, it must be said, a view shared by many, of which this is but one example:
Kevyn Yong 13 September 2013 9:18am
I personally support Zoe's Law. A fetus should be classified alive from the moment of conception. That fateful day, Zoe was walking with Ms Donegan, although not alongside her. They were hit by an inconsiderate driver under the influence of drugs. While Ms Donegan escaped with a couple of physical injuries, Zoe had lost her life. I feel that whether or not harming the fetus should be considered an offence should depend on whether the harm caused to the fetus was done with or without THE CONSENT OF THE MOTHER. If there is anyone who should decide if a fetus be born into this world, it's the fetus' mother. If the mother seeks abortion, she has given consent for the fetus to be "harmed". The mother should thus be unpunished. However should the mother wish to conceive her child and harm is caused to the fetus, he who has caused harm to the fetus should be punished.Could there be a better example of the selfish, irresponsible generation the progressives have created than this naked demand for Humpty-Dumpty's rules for words to be applied to the mechanics of life?