It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)State Representative (GA) tries to pass bill criminalizing miscarriage(64 posts)(64 posts)
(64 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 10, 2011
i need to leave this country............
Posted March 10, 2011
Time to send General Sherman down there again;the state needs a good butt kicking.
Posted March 10, 2011
avatar
wpegg: Could someone help me out. I'm below average on my knowledge of laws in any country (including my own), but after reading that very tedious document, I couldn't find anything that shifted the burden of proof.

The document defined prenatal murder as being one that was not caused by any human involvement, however I couldn't see where it said that involvement would be assumed. This is probably because: it regularly refers to amendments a bill that I didn't have access to, that I'm English and therefore making assumptions about your legal system, and that it's getting late and I'm tired.

I did find it interesting that in between trying to define the rights of an unborn baby, the bill also slips measures which look as though they are to begin the prevention of contraception (for example stopping it being available in schools - line 158). I can only assume that the next step is to argue that sperm are half human and therefore it is half murder, a bit like killing a midget ;).

My own interpretation of this bill, not being from america, is that it is just another pro lifer saying what they've always said, and trying to get it into law just as they usually do. Then he'll probably go visit Sarah Palin and shoot a few animals to exercise the freedom that life has given him.

Incidentally I don't disagree with his intentions of reclassifying victims to accusers. From a legal perspective it strikes me that the term does convey an assumption of guilt, which should be absent from a legal system until the accused is found guilty. He could perhaps have simply gone with "alleged victim".
I agree with this 'victim' to 'accuser' is more accurate.

But a miscarriage shouldn't be anyone else's business and the person is suffering enough from the incident. Even if this is a blanket law it's a terribly stupid and intrusive law into something that should be no one's concern but the mother's.
Post edited March 10, 2011 by carnival73
Posted March 10, 2011
The text posted in the OP makes it look like the bill criminalizes self induced miscarriage (by taking a shit-ton of drugs, for example, or inducing miscarriage with birth control pills, which I understand is possible).

The rep sounds like he has some issues or he just has a bunch of wacko voters he knows will vote for him for introducing legislation that will never be passed.
Post edited March 10, 2011 by orcishgamer
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
Rohan15: After reading this guy thinks rape victims should be accusers and that he wants this new law to be passed, I lost my faith in this country.
Actually, changing the wording is a good idea. It's a way of recognizing that those that choose to report it are taking action to protect themselves and society.

But this bill is one that abortion opponents love because it makes this glomp of cells into something other than a glomp of cells, regardless of whether it's developed to the point of actually having any sort of thought, no matter how rudimentary.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
strixo: Wait, I'm not sure I understand your opinion of Fox News? Are they "ok"? Could you be less subtle?

That being said, I'm surprised I didn't google a MSNBC piece on it, and instead the Fox News. I'm sure, somewhere, Olberman's head has exploded.
avatar
Navagon: It wouldn't make much difference. Americans don't have news. You have Reality-Inspired Infotainment.
what does this even mean?
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
Navagon: It wouldn't make much difference. Americans don't have news. You have Reality-Inspired Infotainment.
avatar
CaptainGyro: what does this even mean?
Just watch PBS for all your news like anyone over 70. The least biased news there.
Posted March 11, 2011
So many dead babies on my dirty boxer shorts :(
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
CaptainGyro: what does this even mean?
It means the majority of US news... isn't.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
CaptainGyro: what does this even mean?
avatar
Navagon: It means the majority of US news... isn't.
Indeed Fox "News" the ones that are always claiming to be "fair and balanced" went to court specifically over the right to make up news for their network. They argued successfully that they're an entertainment network rather than a news network and are as such not required to have any journalistic integrity.

Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones to take that stance.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
hedwards: Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones to take that stance.
What I don't understand is why they weren't legally required to change their name following their own claims in court and also sued for misrepresentation of their programming.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
hedwards: Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones to take that stance.
avatar
Navagon: What I don't understand is why they weren't legally required to change their name following their own claims in court and also sued for misrepresentation of their programming.
Because Rupert Murdoch bribes public officials. He attempted to hand Newt Gingrich a huge advance on a book, which would have dwarfed the entire take from the previous one, about the same time that the FCC was looking into whether he should, as a foreigner, be allowed to own a media outlet.

Fox "news" is what half the country thinks of as being free of liberal propaganda. Unfortunately, it's also completely devoid of actual news and is sort of like the Daily Mail in the UK. (Assuming I've got that right)
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
Navagon: What I don't understand is why they weren't legally required to change their name following their own claims in court and also sued for misrepresentation of their programming.
avatar
hedwards: Because Rupert Murdoch bribes public officials. He attempted to hand Newt Gingrich a huge advance on a book, which would have dwarfed the entire take from the previous one, about the same time that the FCC was looking into whether he should, as a foreigner, be allowed to own a media outlet.

Fox "news" is what half the country thinks of as being free of liberal propaganda. Unfortunately, it's also completely devoid of actual news and is sort of like the Daily Mail in the UK. (Assuming I've got that right)
The Daily Mail is part of the Murdoch empire, iirc.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
orcishgamer: The Daily Mail is part of the Murdoch empire, iirc.
Wouldn't surprise me. Murdoch is probably one of the most dangerous men on the planet. And he's either to stupid or greedy to see what he's doing.
Posted March 11, 2011
avatar
orcishgamer: The Daily Mail is part of the Murdoch empire, iirc.
avatar
hedwards: Wouldn't surprise me. Murdoch is probably one of the most dangerous men on the planet. And he's either to stupid or greedy to see what he's doing.
You assume a man like that has goals or thinks anything like people like us. I don't think he does, socially, he's nearly another species. This is, incidentally, why I think Bill Maher actually gets it right when he asks the Tea Party folks "Why do you think you're goals should be in any way aligned with these people? Aren't you being useful idiots?" I don't think Bill Maher is consistent or fair, but he is amusing at times, and occasionally even right. He's also a hypocrite.

So when we say evil or greedy, I actually don't think it's either. I think he just doesn't care, he's an alpha male among billions of omegas, in his worldview.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)State Representative (GA) tries to pass bill criminalizing miscarriage(64 posts)(64 posts)
(64 posts)