Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
A precedent against voluntary abortion? (Read 1039 times)
...
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male
Re: A precedent against voluntary abortion?
Reply #45 - Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:09pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:06pm:
... wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:02pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:00pm:
... wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 3:10pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 2:48pm:
... wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 2:25pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 1:36pm:
Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 10:18am:
Wesley, what about mental illness in the mother? Or extreme poverty? Consensual incest that has resulted in a pregnancy?

Buzz, do you really think the baby had no right to life because it's parents were gay? That's a pretty revolting point of view.



No annie, I think buzz was arguing that OTHER posters have stated that the child shouldn't have been born, because the parents were gay...




I don't think they are even gay.

You mean the two women mentioned in the story???



Oh silly me....fancy assuming her 'partner' with whom she had a baby was a man.  I don't know what came over me!


Well it WAS mentioned in a post in the thread....



Yes, one of BUZZ'S posts.  There's never anything useful in those, so I just skip over them.



well I have to say, nothing YOU posted is actually changed by the fact that it was a 'gay' couple, as opposed to a hetero couple....

The complaint about the sentence is irrelevant to the gender of the parents....



No, I never made an issue of their sexuality.

While I don't think IVF should have been made available to them in the first place, it WAS made available, and a life was created because of it.
Back to top
 

In the fullness of time...
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: A precedent against voluntary abortion?
Reply #46 - Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:09pm
 
... wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 3:53pm:
Quote:
If a woman were to walk into a bar, lift a gun and fire it at an abusive husband and miss him killing someone else, should they get off.



Funny you should say that.....the precedent has already been set.

Quote:
A woman convicted of fatally stabbing her 15-month-old daughter has walked free from a Perth court after a judge said she had suffered enough.

Nicole Frances Bryan, 23, stabbed her daughter Chenelle with a long-bladed kitchen knife as she was cradled in the arms of her father, Geoffrey Miller, at their Dawesville home, south of Perth, in March last year.

On Friday the Supreme Court was told the pair had a four-year history of domestic disputes in which Miller had been violent towards Bryan, but she seldom notified police and would not heed advice to lodge an official complaint against her de facto husband.

She told police she had targeted Miller in the attack and accidentally stabbed her daughter.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/mother-escapes-jail-after-stabbing-baby-daughter-to-death-20100122-mpqe.html




I remember that, and it too made my blood boil.

Soft Judges.  Why do people put so much pressure on police when Judges let people walk free anyway.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14004
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: A precedent against voluntary abortion?
Reply #47 - Nov 17th, 2010 at 4:38pm
 
Verge wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 3:46pm:
Equitist wrote on Nov 17th, 2010 at 2:05pm:
Quote:
A Noble Park man, whose dangerous driving caused the death of an unborn baby, has been sentenced to three years and five months in jail.

Judge Meryl Sexton told the court Amrick Thind, 23, was driving aggressively, weaving in and out of traffic along Warrigal Road in Oakleigh, Victoria when he suddenly changed lanes, [highlight]clipping a four-wheel drive and sending it veering head on into Hannah Robert's car[/highlight].

Ms Robert was eight months pregnant and lost her unborn baby daughter in the crash. Four other people were also injured.

Judge Sexton said she did not accept Thind had made a "split second" decision to change lanes, but rather had taken "unnecessary risks" in driving too close to the car in front.

"The way in which you were driving caused irreversible and heartbreaking changes to the lives of a number of those people," she said.

She said no-one could fail to be touched by the eloquent and powerful statements of Ms Robert and her partner about the loss of their baby girl.

"Slowly, they have recovered from their physical injuries. It will take much longer for their emotional healing," she said.

In sentencing Thind, Judge Sexton told the court she accepted his remorse, but said it was lessened by his decision to flee the scene after he saw the collision.

"I must state clearly that conduct of the kind you engaged in will not be tolerated," she said.

Thind pleaded guilty to five counts of dangerous driving causing serious injury and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

He will serve a non-parole period of two years and three months.

He has been ordered to pay $6,523 for damage to Ms Robert's car, and is likely to face deportation after his release from prison.


This is a very sad case...

Clearly, the accident happened in a short timeframe and there is no evidence whatsoever that the offender was aware of the woman's pregnancy - he didn't hit her vehicle directly and she was simply one of several people in the vicinity of his vehicle at the time that he was driving dangerously...

It is a fact, that the unborn baby died following the crash - but the manner of the offender's driving was apparently not so reckless as to legally warrant more serious charges...

It is interesting, the way that the journalist reported that the offender was deemed responsible for compensating for the damage to the woman's car...

I drive an average of nearly 100km each day and I find myself bearing witness to this sort of risky driving behaviour pretty much on a daily basis - but, despite the ever-present risk, I rarely witness a collision as a consequence...

As sad as this case is, I believe that the Judge had no real legal basis for imposing a harsher penalty than incarceration for a minimum non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months - if she had been harsher, her sentence would have most likely been overturned on appeal...


Garbage, pure garbage.

When you break road rules and engage in risky and dangerous behaviour, should that behaviour lead to a serious accident one should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.







As was the case, in this example
A foetus is NOT considered a human life under the laws of this country - like it or not

Hence, there was no charge of manslaughter
Only dangerous (or culpable ?) driving causing injury

I'd guess it was a maximum sentence on that charge

That is all a magistrate can do




Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print