The Forum > Article Comments > Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws > Comments
Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws : Comments
By Jocelynne Scutt, published 11/5/2007Confidentiality and privacy laws are little protection against the determined anti-abortionist.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
The problem that stewed to this crisis point of killing unborn babies is 'law'...and where the laws/court repeatedly fails, the ordinary common person of the public has/must correct...
Attorney-general for state of queensland(ex rel kerr) v T (1983) 8 fam LR 875 in high court:
Father wanted an injunction to prevent the woman from aborting his child from an 'one-off' casual sex. High court said...essentially 'bugger-off'...'a foetus has no right of its own'...so guess what happened...yep...
In the marriage of F (1989) 13 fam LR 189 family court...separation and wife 13 weeks pregnant and father wanted injunction to prevent women terminating his child. family court said...'The foetus has no right at common law which could be enforced on its behalf by H(father)'...at 'commonlaw' meaning developed over 1000 years of english legal practice...how long has this sisterhood organized power for unbalanced benefit been going on under the radar?...read the brutality in these cases for your self. Most court libraries have the cases and more...
These fathers spent a lot of money to protect their unborn child...how many of us whom feel the same can afford this...
It is becoming quite clear that what is happening now with unborn children whom have absolutely no legal rights is intolerable to ordinary decent person of society...
Lot of things must happen...I think the first is law must be passed that before termination is carried out a legal offer must be made to the real father-'absolutely terminating all rights of women to child and father taking over full rights and care of his child'...if father disagrees then only termination can proceed...otherwise child lives...
Sam