TN: Miscarriage will be murder

[koshergrl]

And that is schizophrenic.

 

[Vidi]

The wording is too loose. I've had a miscarriage. My daughter has had a miscarriage. So - what? We'd be in deep serious? Because we 'might' have done something to harm the fetus?

That is not what the bill said, it is protecting the woman and her choice on having a child. You cause harm to the mother whose choice is to have the child, and the child dies, then because the mother chose to have have the child, then it is considered a life and is treated as such by the law.

You know this makes no sense don't you?

It makes sense. It a weak semantic argument but it makes sense.

If the mother intended to carry the fetus to term, the fetus is life. If she didn't, then it's not. Therefore, it's based on her choice.

I don't think it's a good argument, but it makes sense.

 

[koshergrl]

Intent does not define life.

It doesnt' make sense.

 

[BluePhantom]

Hmmmm....well I have read the bill and the Tennessee code related to it. It's short so I will just post it all. Now subsections (a) and (c) were the only ones changed. Subsection (b) was already on the books.


2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 13 - Offenses Against Person
Part 2 - Criminal Homicide
39-13-214 - Viable fetus as victim.


39-13-214. Viable fetus as victim.
(a) For the purposes of this part, "another" and "another person" include a human
embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the
victim of any act made criminal by this part, and when at the time of the criminal act the
victim was pregnant.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the provisions of § 39-15-201, or §§ 39-15-203 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.

(c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant
woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful
medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a
health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.


TCA 39-13-107 is just a duplication of TCA 39-13-214 so I won't bother to post that...it says the same thing word for word.


So all they really did was to change the language from "fetus" to include any stage of gestation. TCA 39-15-201 was already law and is in regard to the intentional act of forcing miscarriage. TCA 39-15-203 is in regard to record keeping for abortions by physicians, and TCA 39-15-207 deals with custody issues of abortion attempts where the child is born alive. The new law does nothing to change or amend any of those provisions that had already been enacted and presumably enforced as law.


So when we put all this together what I am reading is that the suggestion (as the linked article in the OP suggests) that someone who, for example, smokes around a pregnant woman can be charged with murder if she miscarries is one hell of a stretch. It also excludes abortion specifically. The article, therefore, is propaganda at best and a flat out lie by the author at worst.


http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB3517.pdf

39-13-214 - Viable fetus as victim. :: 2010 Tennessee Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

39-13-107 - Viable fetus as victim. :: 2010 Tennessee Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

39-15-201. Criminal abortion and attempt to procure criminal miscarriage

39-15-203. Records and reports of abortions

TENNESSEE

 

[Vidi]

Intent does not define life.

It doesnt' make sense.

Yes, I get it. Youve made your stance perfectly clear thread after thread. YOU decide for everyone. Regardless of the issue.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That is not what the bill said, it is protecting the woman and her choice on having a child. You cause harm to the mother whose choice is to have the child, and the child dies, then because the mother chose to have have the child, then it is considered a life and is treated as such by the law.

You know this makes no sense don't you?

It makes sense. It a weak semantic argument but it makes sense.

If the mother intended to carry the fetus to term, the fetus is life. If she didn't, then it's not. Therefore, it's based on her choice.

I don't think it's a good argument, but it makes sense.

No, it doesn't. The unborn's life isn't dependent upon whether it is wanted or not; it is a human life from the get go, planned or unplanned; wanted or not wanted. To claim anything else is simply justification for the destruction of a human life . . . to claim the unborn as 'not human' is nothing more than pro-choice rubbish in order to hide from the truth.

"It's not a human if I want to kill it but it is a human if you want to kill it."

 

[koshergrl]

The next step is allowing strong family members to determine if their incapacitated loved (I use that term loosely) ones are really "alive"....

If they determine they aren't, why then....

 

[Vidi]

People should never value themselves about all else. That's called narcissism, and it's a mental illness. When you value yourself above all others, you're a sociopath.

So you're an altruist?

No, I'm a non-narcissist, non-mentally ill, non-sociopath.

Oh my. Too easy. Far too easy.

You just have a nice day. No, that snickering you hear isn't directed at you, at all.

 

[Vidi]

You know this makes no sense don't you?

It makes sense. It a weak semantic argument but it makes sense.

If the mother intended to carry the fetus to term, the fetus is life. If she didn't, then it's not. Therefore, it's based on her choice.

I don't think it's a good argument, but it makes sense.

No, it doesn't. The unborn's life isn't dependent upon whether it is wanted or not; it is a human life from the get go, planned or unplanned; wanted or not wanted. To claim anything else is simply justification for the destruction of a human life . . . to claim the unborn as 'not human' is nothing more than pro-choice rubbish in order to hide from the truth.

"It's not a human if I want to kill it but it is a human if you want to kill it."

It's a legal determination only. Legally contradictions are allowed. Ethically, though, I do see it as a contradiction, which is why I asked for some to explain it, without the partisan bullshit.

Look, I get it. Personally, I'm pro life. If its MY kid, it's life. But if it's someone else's child, they have to make that determination for themselves, so that makes me pro choice politically.

 

[Unkotare]

If the mother intended to carry the fetus to term, the fetus is life. If she didn't, then it's not.

You pro-death abortionists will sacrifice all logic and self respect in order to justify your embrace of the indefensible.

 

[Unkotare]

Personally, I'm pro life. If its MY kid, it's life. But if it's someone else's child, they have to make that determination for themselves, so that makes me pro choice politically.

No, that makes you an immoral, dishonest hypocrite.

 

[BDBoop]

The wording is too loose. I've had a miscarriage. My daughter has had a miscarriage. So - what? We'd be in deep serious? Because we 'might' have done something to harm the fetus?

good grief..do we really need to know this?

Yeah, you're right. It's much better to generalize and judge when you don't actually know any humans.

 

[BDBoop]

The next step is allowing strong family members to determine if their incapacitated loved (I use that term loosely) ones are really "alive"....

If they determine they aren't, why then....

I'm not banking on anyone having the strength to do that for me. If dementia is involved, I'm taking a snow nap in the north woods.

 

[koshergrl]

It makes sense. It a weak semantic argument but it makes sense.

If the mother intended to carry the fetus to term, the fetus is life. If she didn't, then it's not. Therefore, it's based on her choice.

I don't think it's a good argument, but it makes sense.

No, it doesn't. The unborn's life isn't dependent upon whether it is wanted or not; it is a human life from the get go, planned or unplanned; wanted or not wanted. To claim anything else is simply justification for the destruction of a human life . . . to claim the unborn as 'not human' is nothing more than pro-choice rubbish in order to hide from the truth.

"It's not a human if I want to kill it but it is a human if you want to kill it."

It's a legal determination only. Legally contradictions are allowed. Ethically, though, I do see it as a contradiction, which is why I asked for some to explain it, without the partisan bullshit.

Look, I get it. Personally, I'm pro life. If its MY kid, it's life. But if it's someone else's child, they have to make that determination for themselves, so that makes me pro choice politically.

So when legally blacks weren't considered human, they weren't human?

Wow. They only became human once the law recognized them as such?

Interesting.

But not surprising. Culture of death, leftists embrace you.

I also would like to point out something...I have said repeatedly through the years that the left condones abortion because they believe they should be able to dictate who should live and die. Vidi is a classic example...HE determines whether HIS child is alive or not, and he wants to maintain that power.

 

[BDBoop]

No, it doesn't. The unborn's life isn't dependent upon whether it is wanted or not; it is a human life from the get go, planned or unplanned; wanted or not wanted. To claim anything else is simply justification for the destruction of a human life . . . to claim the unborn as 'not human' is nothing more than pro-choice rubbish in order to hide from the truth.

"It's not a human if I want to kill it but it is a human if you want to kill it."

It's a legal determination only. Legally contradictions are allowed. Ethically, though, I do see it as a contradiction, which is why I asked for some to explain it, without the partisan bullshit.

Look, I get it. Personally, I'm pro life. If its MY kid, it's life. But if it's someone else's child, they have to make that determination for themselves, so that makes me pro choice politically.

So when legally blacks weren't considered human, then they weren't human?

Yup, ZEFs and blacks are interchangeable. Ya heard it here first.

After the break: The earth IS actually flat.

 

[koshergrl]

So you agree, blacks weren't human before the law determined them to be so.

Thank you.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh! Did you just say zefs aren't human? Sweet! One down, millions to go.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q96-e042bk]salt 'n pepa - none of your business (original video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Not the scorn and the de-humanising language embraced by pooper and the rest of the eugenecists.

 

[Papageorgio]

The next step is allowing strong family members to determine if their incapacitated loved (I use that term loosely) ones are really "alive"....

If they determine they aren't, why then....

I'm not banking on anyone having the strength to do that for me. If dementia is involved, I'm taking a snow nap in the north woods.

Would you remember where the north woods are?

 

[koshergrl]

People who lobby the hardest for the deaths of others are generally the ones who fight the hardest (and at the expense of anyone else in their way) to prolong their own miserable lives.