what the hell

I don't know what to say about this

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/...t-women-murder-charges?cat=world&type=article

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ugh!

Mississippi.

Can't we just pretend it's another country?

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think they are learning how to manipulate the system from the E.P.A. Yeah that looks like the E.P.A. trick that they used to make carbon dioxide a hazardous material . The left and the right steal each others tricks all the time you know . If they see it works for the other side they are all over it . Don't breath , it is hazardous , Cow farts too, All undulates farting methane is not good . We should kill em all , How bout it . We could breath a little easier for a couple years until the cycle of life dies out once and for all .

Sorry off topic . Hope she don't get the full extent of the law , but hey drugs and killings painted in a dastardly way all in the same case , She could end up being a scape goat . Lets hope not. Social freedom will be on the run if she does . Not that I take a stance on abortion . I don't . No more than I do for killing anything . I am a killer so who am I to talk . I kill animals . Humans are Animals so why would they be any different than other animals . Except I don't eat human so I don't kill em , Good for all of you out there in La La Land . I only kill the animals I eat unless by accident. It is enough for me not to take a stance on embryo killing. It is not that human meat is not good for I have heard from many human meat eaters that it is extremely tasty. It is because of Mad Cow . I don't want to take any chances . I am Mad Cow enough thank you . Don't need any more Mad Cows

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You didn't read the full article string, that was just one of the what? 5? Cases cited

 

sung by Dave Lippman:

 

What is that a right to life person . He seems to be a real piece of work . So what save a baby until there a baby then you can kill em cause there now human and they don't care bout humans . Am I reading that right Chimpkin ? What right to life coupled with humans are bad indoctrination. I thought I seen it all after Tub Girl , Guess not

 

Reading again maybe it is just the opposite of what I was thinking (Dyslexia is a curse ) So if the christian saves a child from abortion then after that they make the child a sinner and beat the child and make them feel worthless and the song is a protest song that speaks to that ?

 

Mississippi, Indiana, Alabama ... sounds about right

Well, about the only thing I can say is that anyone who ever said I was being extremist and paranoid for suggesting that women would be investigated and criminally charged for miscarriages can go shag themselves now, in celebration of having shown me just how wrong I was.

I'm of the opinion that this is the whole plan. For these people, women are just baby factories, and in their spare time exist to please their menfolk.

Mississippi, Indiana, Alabama. There is nothing unexpected about this atrocity happening in those states. Folks out there have been working toward this for a long time.

 

No, Lippmann is a parody act.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mikey...you will just not let tubgirl drop....
Unlike the stuff that came out of her butt!!!
:roflmao:

I don't think I was one of those. How can you tell the difference between a miscarriage and an illegal abortion? Pretty difficult.

 

Return of the Pokies

It's a point that arose for me a few years ago from a nexus of "life at conception/miniature complete people" and the Equal Protection Clause.

If life begins at conception, and these blastocysts and fetuses are fully human, then yes, law enforcement owes investigation to every single miscarriage to determine accident, negligence, or will.

If a woman has an unexpected bloody discharge, and throws away the underwear, flushes the toilet, does laundry ... whatever ... has she just destroyed evidence?

That's how silly this can get, and since they're already trying to charge people based on suspicions that they might possibly have done something during pregnancy ....

I even took to making jokes about it:

Who among us would apply for the job of Section Chief for Uterine and Menstrual Enforcment? You know, "Hello, my name is Bob Bobberson. I am the SCUM-E for the Seattle Police Department."

Ye gads, can you imagine that in Britain? "Afternoon, ma'am. Time for the Pokies. Please lift your dress."​

The lesson to be had here: Don't have sex in Alabama, Indiana, or Mississippi.

In fact, it's probably best if we just avoid those places altogether.

 

Oh...if they go there, what about those fertilized eggs from IVF???

Women would have to attempt implantation of every fertilized egg....
Or get charged with manslaughter for throwing them in a biohazard bag?

In-vitro gets to go away, methinks.

 

Personally I do think you have to take some responsibility for a child you chose to keep but if it dies before it's born that's just sad, not criminal. Its estimated 9/10 fetuses self abort in the first trimester because they are unsustainible.

 

This and That

And then ask yourself about apportionment.

The implications of life at conception are somewhere between mind-boggling and downright silly.

• • •​

Is there a skate band called Fetal Suicide, yet?

 

They appear to be deathmetal, but I am having funky problems loading streaming audio ATM
(Which was a real drag earlier when I was trying to watch youporn...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ9Ou_Y7XGw

 

Bells, I could care less about the dead fetuses, I care about the children and adults who have life long health issues because you can't take care. I'm not anti abortion

 

Putting Women In Their Place, and Other Notes

Well, paint me yellow and call me Clancy.

And I know it's off-topic, but what happened to death metal? Whence comes this industrial influence that makes it sound like dance music for zombies?

• • •​

Well, yeah. You're right. It's just not so snappy a slogan, is it?

I'll just stay the hell out of those places unless necessity demands. And I'm not even a woman.

With state courts, especially, it is a matter of laws. For instance, a friend once protested a primary-offense seatbelt ticket in Oregon. The officer, for whatever reason, was incorrect when he asserted that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, and then put it on when pulled over. Absolutely incorrect.

No video. No other witnesses. A simple he said/he said. The judge looked at the defendant and said he could not doubt the integrity of the police officer.

This is a specific violation of the federal constitution. Specifically, the judge denied my friend equal protection. Now, this is a small example, but it happens in various degrees quite often; police officers, even when facing charges and evidence of corruption, are given extra credit of honesty for the fact of their badges. Their word counts for more than that of anyone who isn't a cop, and who might argue the facts.

And if you press the issue in state courts, you will find a dead end. The state courts will hide behind the fact that they are state courts, and thus only apply the laws of the state.

And in these states, certainly there are some judges who think of women in such a demeaning context, but I'm not certain just how many of those will achieve higher benches, such as a State Supreme Court. (It is worth noting that one elected judge in Washington state tumbled from his bench last year after voters tried comparing his "sanctity of marriage" arguments about gay unions with the fact that he was a serial adulterer; naturally, the former judge blames the media for his downfall.)

I'm trying to find a polite way of saying it, one that doesn't sound like I'm smacking you in the face, but, essentially, it is sometimes a judge's job to apply the law regardless of what he or she personally believes.

And a reasonably high proportion of our judges do a pretty good job of it. In many cases, they will hide behind the valences of their courts in order to avoid the appearance of injecting their personal beliefs into various decisions.

(Look, for instance, at the brouhaha we just had about Judge Vaughn Walker; from the protestations in that one, we might suggest that only an impotent, gay male judge who can never get anyone pregnant should rule on abortion issues.)

I think it was in the days before the internet became ubiquitous, but I do recall that a defendant in Missouri successfully defended himself against an MIP charge because he was in a life-at-conception state, and he was close enough to his twenty-first birthday to argue that since his life began at conception, he was, in fact, of age to drink when he was cited.

In the end, what will happen if these states insist on life at conception is that the more vicious activists on the liberal side will start filing all manner of lawsuits that, at first, seem absolutely frivolous: civil rights complaints on behalf of the blastocyst because the police did not investigate its allegedly accidental death; eviction processes for an unwelcome fetus, eventually demanding either late-term abortion or a rent payment from the born child; eventually it will get down to congressional apportionment. Somewhere in there, the courts are going to hold up their hands and say, "Wait a minute. Does it not change the question at all that this 'life', as the law asserts, exists inside another person's body?"

See, liberals in the U.S., when they strap on their doctrine, will always rush toward equal protection. And if the law trumps the mother in favor of the fetus, that law can be rendered moot by demanding equal protection for the fetus in all issues.

Meanwhile, women in those states will either leave, if they can, or else follow any number of routes the men might find undesirable. There is the Lysistrata solution. There is permanent birth control that cannot be sabotaged. And the act of a man lying and conning his way into the sack with a woman will finally become an act of rape. Perhaps an organization will spring up to help men devise sexual permission contracts, in which they declare their fitness for healthy sexual contact, and sign a legally-binding pledge to financial responsibility for any accidental conception.

In other words, there may come a point in Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, and other states in which men will simply find it easier to go rent a hooker or take their chances on raping someone. And, hell, that's what they want, in the end, anyway.

They're cutting off their dicks to spite a woman's humanity.

And if that's the way it goes nationwide, you might finally see western Washington secede to form Cascadia, northern California secede to form Jefferson, and pick up Oregon—west of the Cascades—to form a Pacific American Union.

And we'll leave all the sexually frustrated, insecure men to their Jesusland.

Maybe in Indiana. But the Pacific coast won't stand for it. The northern Atlantic coast won't stand for it.

The demographic arc I would project suggests that as these anti-woman laws stack up in places like Alabama, Indiana, and Mississippi, is that such states will start to lose population as women seek out economic opportunities in friendlier, more egalitarian climes. Over the decades, these states will see their congressional share decline, and thus their electoral share°.

There will, of course, be battleground states inflicting heavy damage against women's equality in society, but the long-term outcome will be that eventually Supreme Court seats will swing ever more liberal on the issue, as metropolitan areas already known to swing their states' political divisions become more powerful. Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago, New York City, Boston, &c. In the end, Miami and Dallas/Fort Worth won't be enough to carry the conservative cause in this issue.

It is always a shame to lose a battle with such heavy stakes, but the long-term conflict will eventually settle out on the side of women. At some point, the courts must necessarily recognize that the unique consideration of one life occurring within the confines of another.

Meanwhile, the shades of guilt someone like me might feel at leaving so many of our American sisters in the hands of such fundamental hatred will numb out somewhat; I have many human brothers and sisters living under tyranny all around the world, and I cannot free them all.

Certainly, we might suggest abject cruelty on the part of officials in Mississippi, Indiana, Alabama, and other states, but there comes a point where these misogynists simply can't help themselves. They are indoctrinated into what is, essentially, an appeal to emotion. It will be a long road to recovery for them, should they ever choose that path.

Yes, it's a grim picture for the next fifty to one hundred years, but that's also part of how our culture works. This is one of the prices of being an American, and as a man, I generally don't have to suffer the consequences.

If we are not already beyond the point of sanity, I would suggest one specific marker. Imagine yourself pregnant, living in the U.S. You and your husband are driving over to a friend's house for dinner. Suddenly, a drunk driver runs an intersection, striking the car in front of you. Your husband slams on the brakes, narrowly evading any damage to the car.

Two days later, you miscarry. Perhaps it is random. But since the police took measurements as part of their investigation of the traffic accident, they are able to determine that your husband was traveling at least five miles over the speed limit.

The next day, he is charged with murder, on the grounds that if he had been driving at or under the speed limit, he would not have needed to brake so drastically, and thus not have caused the stress on your body that induced the miscarriage.

As the topic article relates, authorities are already charging people based on speculative potentials:

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy—a claim she has denied.​

As such, perhaps your husband could beat the charge, since the state would need to demonstrate that it was the stress of the emergency stop that caused the miscarriage. But that may be well enough for the state. They'll charge him, anyway, and compel your family to spend thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer and medical investigators to defend him. In other words, they'll try to ruin your family simply because you suffered a tragedy.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.​

It is better to simply avoid states like South Carolina, or Alabama, Indiana, and Mississippi. Because, after all that, we come back to your question: Yes, they want women locked up at home, barefoot and pregnant.

And if they miscarry at home, well, surely prosecutors can find something to charge a woman with.

This isn't really about "life at conception". This is about people in states like Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina trying to put women back in their (ahem!) "proper" place.
____________________

Notes:

° and thus their electoral share — As anyone who has watched an American presidential election is aware, it's not the popular vote that counts, but, rather, the Electoral College vote. The apportionment of electors granted a state is determined quite simply, by adding the total number of senators and representatives. The number of congressional representatives is determined according to population.

Works Cited:

Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. Guardian.co.uk. June 26, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

Get off your high horse. 40 of the 50 states have laws regarding feticide, including Washington State. All it takes is one over zealous prosecutor and a woman in Washington state could find herself in the same mess. This is the first time the law has ever been used against a pregnant woman in Indiana and it was not intended to be used in such a way.

This is a good summary of the historical and current (as of 2008) law regarding feticide:

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/...ei-redir=1#search="feticide washington state"

And here's a list of the various state laws regarding feticide:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

According to that source, the law in Indiana states that a person must Knowingly or intentionally kill the baby. Thus the lack of intent might protect the mother in the Indiana case. Most jurisdictions follow the precedent set in The Florida case of State v. Ashley in which the Florida Supreme Court held that while a third party could be charged with feticide, actions taken by the mother were exempt. This decision was based upon common law and the fact that none of the newer statutes specifically overturned The common law doctrine.

I predict that Ms Bei Bei Shuai (the Indiana woman whose child died shortly after being born due to her suicide by rat poison attempt) will ultimately be exonerated and her case will set a precedent in Indiana that will protect woman in the future.

 

It wouldn't get far

Except out here we wouldn't stand for it. Not even in the east half. As your Digital Commons link reminds, it's a third-party statute; the NCSL link reaffirms this, and even points to the state law in question:

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

(a) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(b) He intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.​

​

An overzealous prosecutor would find hordes of protesters outside his office and the courthouse, and would face all but certain defeat in his next electoral bid.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that it would be hard to find a judge that would accept the charge.
____________________

Notes:

Fleming, Mark. "Feticide Laws: Contemporary Legal Applications
and Constitutional Inquiries". Pace Law Review. October 1, 2008. DigitalCommons.Pace.edu. June 26, 2011. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=lawrev

National Conference of State Legislatures. "Fetal Homicide Laws". March, 2010. NCSL.org. June 26, 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

"Manslaughter in the first degree". Revised Code of Washington. January 3, 2011. Apps.Leg.WA.gov. June 26, 2011. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx