Steve Pratt has put out a media release on his planned introduction of a Crimes Amendment Bill 2005 which is intended to make it “an offence to injure or kill an unborn child through assaulting or poisoning a woman who is known to be pregnant and who, as a direct result of the offence, loses her child”.
My first reaction, in my turbo-charged super-cynicism, was that this was a back-door abortion assault.
But (in his statement at least) Mr. Pratt stresses this is not the case.
What do you lot think about this sort of thing?
Loading ...
I think it is a long time coming, and support it 100%. Providing, of course, that it ISN’T affecting abortion.
Just as the debate about reducing abortions is really a stalking horse for reducing womens rights, the debate about the rights of the unborn is just a stalking horse for reducing womens abortion rights.
I’ve been thinking about this.
I really can’t see how any acknowledgment of unborn children as legal entities in need of protection can be consistent with legal abortion.
Extreme acts of assault on any person should be met with extended custodial sentences.
An assault which leads to the termination of a pregnancy should fall into that category.
Do we really need this law which creates a new category of people in the “unborn”?
I dunno VG, older still than incompetent politicians is politicians who say one thnig while doing the opposite.
and he wouldn’t be the first to use popular sentiment to drive unpopular measures.
Not unlike many of us!