Double Standards? Of Course.
A man is being prosecuted for manslaughter for killing a fetus after his car hit a pregnant woman while he was street racing illegally. An interesting case indeed.
When it comes to pregnant women, the fetus is not considered to have any human rights. She can legally kill the fetus and others are legally allowed to kill the fetus on her request. She can drink, drug, starve, exercise or abuse herself to her heart’s content with impunity thereby harming the fetus and eventually giving birth to a disabled baby who will require enormous resources from her society for the baby’s lifetime.
However, when a pregnant woman foolishly attends an illicit street race as a spectator and a male racer unintentionally runs his car into her, the fetus magically acquires human status including a right to life! Suddenly, police and media are referring to the fetus as a “baby girl” and a “deceased child”, as if a human being with rights.
We’re not sure what the law says about all this. Let’s see how the case unfolds and the depths of hypocrisy our feminist-saturated Courts will sink to.
To be clear, the driver deserves prosecution for breaking road laws and for harming the woman through illegal activity causing high risk to others. The woman deserves prosecution for encouraging illegal activity.
I have a friend, who can’t help being reckless.
Somehow a burnout, is an unstoppable addiction.
Speeding to the cars limit, speeding to the roads limit.
Personally I rarely behave like that, and have few crashes.
That’s a very male thing, I highly suspect ego.
They want the best car, and be the best driver.
Like a display they can control, it’s evolution I’m certain.
Personally I can’t be bothered, ego is expensive.
Ego is not worth hurting someone, I can accept his charge.
Because we are responsible for our decisions, everything a choice.
An addiction or ego, cannot fix the females loss.
Personally I have badly crashed a car, thankfully I only hurt myself.
That’s the real price, being reckless and living with the result.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 14th December 2023 @ 8:41 pm
If the driver who just happens to be a man but could have been a woman caused a death is it manslaughter or just reckless disregard for the safety of others?
The State turns a blind eye to what the female does.
Come and tell us when you want to register a life otherwise it’s your private business.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 14th December 2023 @ 9:03 pm
You would hope a female driver, would be charged the same.
That if there is a death, who did it gets defined.
The coroner tells the truth, and it’s considered an accident.
Is that a technical problem, there was no birth certificate for a death.
It should not matter the gender, the legal process then acts.
What the sentence is for each gender, is another argument.
I do think of it a crime, to kill a baby while pregnant.
Females have few chances, pregnancy is a definable thing.
They need a male partner, or have no medical problem.
What if for the lost baby, that’s the females only chance also lost.
I guess once a doctor confirms pregnancy, it exists to the mother.
I have friends who have lost babies, the pregnancy failing.
So I have seen the hurt, even when there is no one to blame.
Strangely after saying that, I see abortion differently.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 15th December 2023 @ 9:21 pm
I blame society, because it made all the results.
It took a baby boy, and it made the street racer male.
It makes cars way overpowered, and movies to change minds.
Video games for training, not seeing the crashes are real.
So attacking this offender, ignores what society did wrong.
It’s what you allowed, or what you provided.
Society allowed all the car culture, and provided the cars as well.
But it prosecutes the street racer, and it provides them no safe track.
Because there is clubs and races, the offenders argument is ruined.
How do you engage with the people, because it’s a group together.
Somehow people planned a meeting, damn the law by consensus.
The pregnant woman for that part, is as guilty as the driver.
How do you get all the meetings, at a place society provides.
It’s sound’s completely wrong, but where the police go to help.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 17th December 2023 @ 7:27 pm
The post makes a good argument, about encouraging offending.
When do we cross that line, because we support something.
Maybe for the female, it goes further with participation.
You know a crime will happen, and you go with the offenders.
You may not even drive, but you certainly went to watch.
If you go to the extreme, what crime is acceptable to watch.
You go to watch a rape, is certainly looked at differently.
Her watching boy racing, was still watching a crime.
But it’s at the other extreme, one crime is more acceptable.
One crime has a line you can’t cross, one the police ignore.
What if she didn’t want to go, having to follow friends.
What if she was an organiser, doing the planning.
Is she not a reason for the crime, with boy’s showing off to girls.
By attending the meeting, she encourages the boys actions.
If no girl was ever interested in boy racing, would it even happen.
We blame the boys, but the girls are ignored.
We punish the boys, and ignore half of the problem.
It will not go away as a thing, if it can increase your chance of sex.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 2nd January 2024 @ 10:41 pm
Double standards is unusual, I wonder where it comes from.
Thanks to the internet, I have copied a meaning.
“A double standard is a code or policy that favors one group or person over another. Double standards are unfair. If a teacher lets all the boys bring candy for lunch but not the girls, that’s a double standard. A standard is a way of evaluating someone, and a double standard is two-faced.”
lol I can spot an obvious one, in how arguments are made.
Let the girls bring candy but not the boys, just doesn’t sound right.
Why did the meanings author, choose the female as the victim.
The was an equal chance, the boys were the victim.
So a double standard, is really stereotyping something.
Infidelity is an example, because the genders are similar.
Who with is different, because men also have prostitution.
I looked at some research about sex, and your chance of getting it.
The experiment was simple, a person asked passing people for sex.
They were younger adults, asking younger adults.
When the male asked, they were successful 1:20 times.
When the female asked, they were successful 19:20 times.
I don’t think we needed the research, to know that’s true enough.
Yet if there’s an argument about infidelity, it’s about the male offender.
A male that’s cheating, must be trying to cheat.
A woman that’s cheating, is because she can.
Both genders have consequences, infidelity has bad effects.
The male can have an extra baby, that he never planned on having.
In real terms his wife is harmed, he has less time and money.
You can bring disease home, to an innocent wife.
You can ruin your relationship, and change your children’s lives.
You have to lie, and lies don’t go away.
If the female has a child to another man, you may never know.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 30th January 2024 @ 6:20 pm
The views expressed in this post contain several misconceptions about legal and ethical standards regarding harm to a fetus. It’s important to clarify these points to understand the complexities of the issue.
Legal Differences Between Abortion and Manslaughter: In New Zealand, the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 allows a woman to make decisions about her pregnancy, including terminating it, based on her bodily autonomy. This law respects a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Conversely, manslaughter charges in a car accident context, such as when a driver’s reckless behaviour results in the death of a fetus, focus on third-party negligence. For instance, in the 2017 case of a Christchurch man charged with manslaughter after causing a crash that resulted in the death of a pregnant woman’s unborn child, the law distinguished between a woman’s legal right to choose and a third party’s reckless actions leading to unintended harm.
Rights and Legal Status of the Fetus: The legal status of a fetus can change based on context. In abortion cases, the focus is on the woman’s rights over her body. In cases of third-party harm, like a car accident, the fetus can be recognised as having rights, especially if it is viable outside the womb. For example, under New Zealand law, a pregnant woman injured by another’s reckless actions, leading to the harm or death of her fetus, may see the perpetrator charged under statutes that recognise the fetus’s potential status as a human life in such contexts.
Misunderstanding Bodily Autonomy: Suggesting that a pregnant woman can harm her fetus through harmful behaviours (e.g., drinking, drug use) without consequence ignores existing laws and social responsibilities. In New Zealand, while there is no specific law criminalising substance abuse during pregnancy – (there should be), healthcare providers and social services intervene to support and protect both the woman and the fetus. For example, the Ministry of Health provides extensive guidelines and support systems to discourage harmful behaviours during pregnancy and promote maternal health.
Encouraging Illegal Activities: Blaming a pregnant woman for attending an illegal street race overlooks the primary responsibility of those engaging in reckless behaviour. In the 2010 case of a Hamilton street racer who killed a bystander, the primary responsibility lay with the driver, although others present were also scrutinised for their roles. In New Zealand, participation in or encouragement of illegal activities like street racing can have legal consequences, but the primary focus is on those who actively engage in the dangerous behaviour, such as the drivers themselves.
Gender and Legal Consequences: The law in New Zealand applies equally to men and women regarding negligent or reckless behaviour leading to harm. The assertion that a female driver wouldn’t face the same charges is unfounded. For instance, in the 2015 case where a female driver in Auckland was charged with dangerous driving causing death, the legal system demonstrated its impartial application of the law, regardless of gender.
Societal Influence on Behaviour: While societal factors do influence behaviour, individuals are still responsible for their actions. Blaming society alone for reckless behaviour, such as street racing, overlooks personal accountability. In New Zealand, initiatives to curb illegal street racing include both enforcement and community programs. For example, the “Boy Racer” legislation enacted in 2003, along with local government initiatives to provide safe venues for car enthusiasts, addresses both societal influences and personal responsibility by creating safer environments for such activities.
In summary, the comparison between abortion rights and third-party harm to a fetus involves distinct legal principles and ethical considerations. Simplifying these complex issues into claims of double standards fails to appreciate the nuanced legal landscape and the importance of context in determining rights and responsibilities.
Comment by Lachlan — Mon 27th May 2024 @ 11:01 am