Atheists condone and condemn rape

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm so happy that the biggest State in Australia, NSW, recently legislated to increase protection of the unborn by recognising their legal "personhood".

Yep, Lion you have just confirmed that you know nothing about Australia, our politics and the religious hypocritical scum-bag that has even other christians wanting his head.

Well done.

[Esquilax]

I'm so happy that the biggest State in Australia, NSW, recently legislated to increase protection of the unborn by recognising their legal "personhood".

Oh, New South Wales is the biggest state?



I'm sure my current state of residence, Western Australia, would be surprised to hear that. Guy won't even look at a map before he opens his gob, and yet we're supposed to take his positions seriously on anything else?

[NoraBrimstone]

Presumably, a foetus loses its personhood if it turns out to be a girl?

[Esquilax]

Presumably, a foetus loses its personhood if it turns out to be a girl?

Until it gets married, and gains a proto-personhood befitting someone attached to a man.

[NoraBrimstone]

Presumably, a foetus loses its personhood if it turns out to be a girl?

Until it gets married, and gains a proto-personhood befitting someone attached to a man.

Makes sense. *nods*

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm so happy that the biggest State in Australia, NSW, recently legislated to increase protection of the unborn by recognising their legal "personhood".

Oh, New South Wales is the biggest state?



I'm sure my current state of residence, Western Australia, would be surprised to hear that. Guy won't even look at a map before he opens his gob, and yet we're supposed to take his positions seriously on anything else?

That was my first thought too Esquilax.

---

I think the idiot is referring to this bill before the NSW house. It isn't what the scmuck thinks it is

I think everyone in this House has heard of cases—and quite often we hear about them and read about them in
the papers; and we see an example on the front pages of the papers in Queensland at the moment—where people
do not believe the judiciary has taken the appropriate action in relation to a crime. If a person drives a vehicle
when they are affected by drugs or alcohol then that is a criminal offence. If in taking that action they then take
a life, even if it is a foetus of only 20 weeks gestation, I believe that foetus, which would under normal
circumstances have been born a healthy baby, has a right to retribution.

As I said, the retribution provided in this legislation should be meted out by the courts not in response
to an act of grievous bodily harm on the mother but as a crime in itself. To me this bill is a way of defining that,
a way of giving closure and a way of providing justice. We as members of the New South Wales Parliament
have an obligation to support this legislation for anyone who may find themselves in this situation.

This isn't about the "unborn foetus" this is about closure and revenge and retribution by the parents....for a crime of prescription drug driving causing an abortion of a 20 week old foetus

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Pa...131031.pdf

Page 3

[Esquilax]

I think the idiot is referring to this bill before the NSW house. It isn't what the scmuck thinks it is

Well, see, that's the trouble: he didn't bother posting anything other than a single contextless, factually incorrect sentence, as if we'd take his bilge seriously just on its own. He vastly overestimates his own credibility, here.

[KichigaiNeko]

The amendment aims to do
two things. First, it aims to put beyond doubt that the bill will not criminalise anything that is not presently
criminal. The amendment does so by the simple, clear technique of expressly declaring that the bill does not
criminalise anything which is not presently criminal. So any innocent, negligent or intentional termination of a
pregnancy which is presently lawful remains lawful.

Secondly, the amendment aims to make it clear that a court is not to increase the overall penalty that it
would have otherwise imposed anyway before the passage of this bill. So the fact that the bill recognises an
offence as being committed against an unborn child would not become the basis for a new, greater penalty than
what exists now when it is instead an offence against the mother. Likewise, where both a mother and an unborn
child are injured the fact that after the bill is passed there would be two offences—one against the mother and
one against the unborn child—would not be a basis for a greater penalty than at the moment when there is
deemed to be only one offence, namely, against the mother. I am not wedded to any particular wording for the
amendment. I am happy to take on board any suggestions for improving the wording of the amendment I have
circulated to achieve the two aims that I have described, namely, no extra criminality and no extra penalty.

If the amendment were carried the bill would not have what some would call any practical consequence

---

it continues...

The bill before the House, even with its amendment, is revisiting an area that already has been
extensively adjudicated by most legal authorities who have said that this proposed law will only make a very
difficult decision even more difficult. The application of the definition of unborn child from one context—the
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995, which stipulates greater than 400 grams or 20 weeks
gestation—in a different context, the criminal law, has been raised with concern by all legal and medical
experts. Why should a foetus of 19 weeks and six days be regarded differently from a foetus of 20 weeks? The
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 does not state that the foetus is alive. Accurate estimation of
gestational age is fraught with inaccuracies

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Lion, have you ever, even once, ever responded to someone without making it a strawman?

I'm attacking supporters of abortion-on-demand.

Now, in order for you to claim that you are the victim of a straw man attack, you would need to show that you DON'T support the position I'm attacking.

Feel free to state your true position whenever you are ready.

You make it sound like you can just walk up and demand an abortion and it all goes through willy-nilly.

It's in no way that simplistic. There is a large amount of emotional and physical support that is required as well.

I don't think any woman would go through with an abortion and not care one iota about it.

But as to all the un-wanted children, there are loads of them in orphanages throughout the world. I don't see the more extreme religious people in the world calling for attacks on abortion clinics calling for more funding and support of state structures that support these orphans, or for measures that would allow more orphans to find a loving family (eg. homosexual adoptions).

If religious sects such as the RCC taught the proper use of contraception, and didn't treat sex as a taboo, then maybe, just maybe, there'd be fewer unwanted children in the world.

And let's not forget that one of the main reasons abortion was legalised (or, rather, decriminalised) was that women were still having them regardless. Regulating and giving proper support to the industry to enforce greater standards was the only logical decision to make. And it stands to the test of logic and reason to this day.

[KichigaiNeko]

This is the sleeze that introduced a Private Members bill. His first wife died of cancer in 2011. Not bad for a 78 year old "good christian"

http://www.news.com.au/national/reverend...6634280660

---

Sorry, had to read some 73 pages but...

Backbench members put their trust in the Cabinet process. Ministers introduce legislation in this place
in a tried, tested and proven way. The process might not be perfect and not everyone agrees with it, but I am
concerned about the introduction of this private member's bill. Regardless of whether that process is right,
wrong or different, it has not been handled in the best way. Allowing members a conscience vote is a clear
indication of a lack of confidence in this bill. We are seeking to change a law yet I do not understand the bill.
One thing is for sure: We cannot control the judicial system. Indeed, some judicial decisions are far from what
we would like them to be. Members are aware of the level of public discontent with our judicial system, which
finds voice from time to time in public protests. A constituent told me that I have to support this bill, and I told
her my views. I cannot support the bill in its current form. I do not believe the process is correct. If the law is
worthy of change then it should be done in the correct manner.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a
future day.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George):

This is all that is in the Hansard regarding "Zoe's Law". No win for the religious as yet.