Vive La France!

motorbiking said:
But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?
Click to expand...
Your claim is in direct contradiction to Noseall's comment (supported by references to the Science and Technology Select Committee):
noseall said:
... If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".[11]11 This is likewise the position under the Human Rights Act (1998). While Article 2 of the European Convention states that, "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law", the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to accept an understanding which would include the fetus as enjoying a "right to life". As the European Commission of Human Rights has noted:
Click to expand...

Here is more of the text for your perusal:
  • The "life" of the foetus is intimately connected with, and cannot be regarded in isolation from, the life of the pregnant woman. If article 2 were held to cover the foetus and its protection under this article were, in the absence of any express limitation, seen as absolute, an abortion would have to be considered as prohibited even where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman. This would mean that the "unborn life" of the foetus would be regarded as being of a higher value than the life of the pregnant woman.[12] 12
This reasoning has recently been confirmed in Vo v France.[13] 13 As a Court of Appeal judge has summarised: "on its true construction Article 2 is apt only to apply to persons already born and cannot apply to a foetus".[14]14
Click to expand...

So I assume you have references to back up your claim, and you will be happy to provide those references?
 
motorbiking said:
But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?
Click to expand...
No crime if the terms of the Act are followed or if the woman's life is in danger.
The rights and health of the woman trump all.
 
motorbiking said:
But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?
Click to expand...
Not my view.
One personal note, I would not like to have to choose between child or mother.
Probably mother. It would be up to her in any case.
 
Brigadier said:
Because, at the time, there is no guarantee that natural and viable life will result. And therefore, no knowledge that "the event" will result in life.
Click to expand...
You responded as above to vinty's argument that life began at conception, the moment the sperm fertilised the egg. So how does the fact there is no guarantee the fertilised egg will result in a child capable of being born make vinty's argument redundant, or, if you will, remove viability as a justification for a termination. Just trying to understand the thought process.
 
blup said:
You responded as above to vinty's argument that life began at conception, the moment the sperm fertilised the egg. So how does the fact there is no guarantee the fertilised egg will result in a child capable of being born make vinty's argument redundant, or, if you will, remove viability as a justification for a termination. Just trying to understand the thought process.
Click to expand...
If I may, Vinty's argument could only stand if the fertilised egg, the embryo, became a foetus.
Only then would there be any possibility of it eventually becoming a child.
So Vinty's argument about the fertilised egg does not stand.
 
noseall said:
Nonsense, conception has feck all to do with it. The rights of the woman trump all. If you are in any doubt, read the text below....



2.1. It has been suggested that, with the exception of a small number of extremists, there is broad agreement that while fetal life deserves respect, its protection cannot take priority over the rights of the pregnant woman.[2] 2 Legal developments since 1967 have made it abundantly clear that, with the glaring exception of the regulation of abortion, this correctly captures the position at English common law and under the Human Rights Act (1998). Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.



  • If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".
Click to expand...
 
motorbiking said:
Not in all cases.

You cannot legally abort at 25 weeks a healthy unborn child on socio-economic grounds. So the Woman's rights are not unlimited.
Click to expand...
You could if the health of the woman were considered to be at risk.
The Act allows the doctors to assess that risk.
 
space junkie said:
I was addressing motorbiking with that comment.
Click to expand...

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

An Act to amend the law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

It's also discussed in the report.

A piece of law written in 1929, effetely evolved beyond its intention due to medical science. It was clear from the comments on the second reading that the goal was to prevent the mother from causing the death of the child during or just before birth. Until 1929, that was not covered by the offences against the person act. But medical science evolved and up until about 1990 there was substantial risk legally, given that viability is now around 23-24 weeks.
 
The Appeals Court Civil Division also only recognises a child as a person after birth, not before.

Abstract​

KIE: A local British health authority, fearing for the welfare of the fetus of a mentally disturbed woman whose first child had been made a ward of the court and put up for adoption, sought to make the unborn child a ward of the court. The case came before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, after the health authority appealed the dismissal of its application. The Court found that it could not exercise wardship, because it had no jurisdiction over unborn children. Until the child was born, thereby reaching the status of a legal person, wardship was necessarily incompatible with the mother's liberty. The Court dismissed the application, suggesting that Parliament create legislation with proper procedural safeguards to deal with this issue.
Click to expand...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Re F (in Utero) - PubMed

Re F (in Utero)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top