Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

[☭proletarian☭]

Intent should be the key.

It is. That's what separates endangerment, negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder. This bill fits the standing precedent and legal understanding, save for the objection I noted earlier.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Intent is the key, right?

No. Not only is intent to harm not necessary, a lack of such intent is generally what makes it negligent endangerment,m as opposed to, say, attemoted homicide.
No. Not only is intent not necessary, but a lack of intent to harm is generally what makes ist negligent endangerment instead of, say, attempted homicide.

We've been over this. I explained it and you attacked me for it.

Are you feeling okay? Is your MPD acting up, my dissociative friend?

Please provide a link to this attack you are SUCH a victim of.

You see those underlined words?


Click on them.


They're called hotlinks. They're one of the wonders of the interwebz.

 

[Valerie]

STILL with the intentional density.

 

[goldcatt]

Why must it be there to have any effect? Intent is the key, right?

Intent should be the key. Different mental states exist for a reason, the higher the penalty the higher the required mental state. And the State must prove mental state as an element of the crime in order to preserve the presumption of innocence.

So I guess trolletarian is saying proving its burden on each element of the crime is too much to ask of the State in a murder case?

Yep! Not much respect for women going on there...

Meh, prole's just trolling. He's been known to do that from time to time.

But the problem with what he's calling a point is, in a traditional homicide statute you'd have different degrees of homicide with lower penalties for merely "reckless" behavior. In States that still call it murder, anything below intentional or knowing behavior is usually manslaughter. Murder or the higher degrees of homicide are intentional crimes. The higher the penalty, the higher the mental state. This bill has one, blanket homicide charge for intentional, knowing or reckless behavior.

What prole is arguing is basically the State should not have to prove intent in order to get a murder conviction, it's too much effort. Sloppy, lazy and dangerous assertion IMO. Do we really want the State to have a lower burden to lighten their load and lock more people away? Not to mention the potential Due Process arguments involved.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What prole is arguing is basically the State should not have to prove intent in order to get a murder conviction, it's too much effort.

Fine, add a second caveat and also amend it it to also allow charges of criminal negligence and involuntary manslaughter, in addition to my earlier caveat.

Again, you're arguing details. The principle of the bill is sound. I never claimed it was perfect or that I agreed with it 100% as it is written.

 

[goldcatt]

What prole is arguing is basically the State should not have to prove intent in order to get a murder conviction, it's too much effort.

Fine, add a second caveat and also amend it it to also allow charges of criminal negligence and involuntary manslaughter, in addition to my earlier caveat.

Again, you're arguing details. The principle of the bill is sound. I never claimed it was perfect or that I agreed with it 100% as it is written.

Which is the same thing this whole thread has been arguing. That the principle is sound, but there is a major flaw that needs to be amended. Thank you!

Unfortunately when you're talking criminal statutes, details matter.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, this thread has been retarded third-wavers crying about shoelaces.

The only flaw in the bill is the one I pointed out in my first response.

The only other thing you've said is that you want there to be the option of lesser charges- and you only now started arguing that, Until now, you've been arguing with the lacers.

 

[goldcatt]

No, this thread has been retarded third-wavers crying about shoelaces.

The only flaw in the bill is the one I pointed out in my first response.

The only other thing you've said is that you want there to be the option of lesser charges- and you only now started arguing that, Until now, you've been arguing with the lacers.

Where did I say I wanted lesser charges established? I think it's ridiculous to prosecute a woman for homicide after having a miscarriage when she had no intent to induce it, period. I'm agreeing with the premise that the bill has a major flaw that needs to be amended. My preferred solution is the same as it has been all along, drop two words: "or reckless". You want to argue over the solution, fine by me. Bring it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Where did I say I wanted lesser charges established?

One post ago

Are you always this confused and forgetful?

I think it's ridiculous to prosecute a woman for homicide after having a miscarriage when she had no intent to induce it, period.

So you oppose charging me for running over you kid because I didn't mean to? I was just having a good time.

 

[Ravi]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well. This law makes no sense.

There's no need to make up idiotic laws because one stupid woman hired someone with a baseball bat to bash her unborn baby out of her.

Ravi, abortion is a legal medical procedure.


Did you notice the baby in this case actually did not die...?

Abortion is not only a legal medical procedure...and if it were, how could it be illegal.

Also, I know the baby was born and put out for adoption. No idea what that has to do with my point.

Why should it matter if the abortion is self induced or performed by a doctor? It shouldn't.

 

[goldcatt]

Where did I say I wanted lesser charges established?

One post ago

Are you always this confused and forgetful?

I think it's ridiculous to prosecute a woman for homicide after having a miscarriage when she had no intent to induce it, period.

So you oppose charging me for running over you kid because I didn't mean to? I was just having a good time.

I checked your link, the words you claim I said are not there. Are you always this condescending and trollish?

I know you're not. What's up your craw?

And nope, I have no problem with vehicular homicide statutes and their enforcement. But then, my child playing in the driveway is not inside my body. I have no choice to leave it with a responsible babysitter while I lift and haul its bed up the steps and put it together - an activity that has been known to cause miscarriage.

Pregnant women make choices all the time, many of them unfortunately involve risk at some level. When the seat belt doesn't fit anymore, do you stay tied to the house and call (and pay for) an ambulance to take you to the hospital when you go into labor? Or do you drive to the grocery store anyway, because you need to eat? Why is it up to the State to determine what level of risk is acceptable, and when balanced with what needs?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Which is the same thing this whole thread has been arguing. That the principle is sound, but there is a major flaw that needs to be amended.

Your words. Now you deny them?

Are you always so dishonest? Typical of 3rd-wavers.

And nope, I have no problem with vehicular homicide statutes and their enforcement. But then, my child playing in the driveway is not inside my body.

Doesn't matter where the child is.

All you have is sad strawmen about shoe,laces and playing sports when you're ready to pop. And you're too stupid to realize that the latter is actually a prime example of when the women should be held accountable.

Why is it up to the State to determine what level of risk is acceptable, and when balanced with what needs?

For the same reason the state decides whether my setting off a bunch of fireworks in a public library is unacceptable and leaves me liable for burning the building down.

 

[Valerie]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well. This law makes no sense.

There's no need to make up idiotic laws because one stupid woman hired someone with a baseball bat to bash her unborn baby out of her.

Ravi, abortion is a legal medical procedure.


Did you notice the baby in this case actually did not die...?

Abortion is not only a legal medical procedure...and if it were, how could it be illegal.

Also, I know the baby was born and put out for adoption. No idea what that has to do with my point.

Why should it matter if the abortion is self induced or performed by a doctor? It shouldn't.

Abortion in the United States has been legal since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, but the effective availability of abortion varies significantly from state to state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

The fact that the illegal {and brutal!] attempt could fail is a good example of why it shouldn't be legal.

a 17-year-old girl, seven months pregnant, paid a man she had just met $150 to beat her up in hopes of inducing a miscarriage that would resolve her crisis.

 

[goldcatt]

Which is the same thing this whole thread has been arguing. That the principle is sound, but there is a major flaw that needs to be amended.

Your words. Now you deny them?

Are you always so dishonest? Typical of 3rd-wavers.

Bullshit on all counts and you know it. Cut the disingenuous trolling crap if you want to be taken seriously.

And nope, I have no problem with vehicular homicide statutes and their enforcement. But then, my child playing in the driveway is not inside my body.

Doesn't matter where the child is.

All you have is sad strawmen about shoe,laces and playing sports when you're ready to pop. And you're too stupid to realize that the latter is actually a prime example of when the women should be held accountable.

Never mind that you're completely misstating the entire thread and its arguments. That's just more disingenuous horseshit not worthy of a response.

I'm more interested in your actual point. Women should be held accountable for what, exactly?

Why is it up to the State to determine what level of risk is acceptable, and when balanced with what needs?

For the same reason the state decides whether my setting off a bunch of fireworks in a public library is unacceptable and leaves me liable for burning the building down.

And how exactly does this relate to the thread topic?

 

[Ravi]

Oh, I get it Val...you are only looking at the new law as pertaining to this one narrow case. Well, it doesn't. It would also apply to a woman taking an extremely hot bath or swallowing some bitter herbs if she missed her period.

btw...I saw nothing in your Roe v. Wade blurb that said abortion is only a medical procedure.

 

[Valerie]

Oh, I get it Val...you are only looking at the new law as pertaining to this one narrow case. Well, it doesn't. It would also apply to a woman taking an extremely hot bath or swallowing some bitter herbs if she missed her period.

btw...I saw nothing in your Roe v. Wade blurb that said abortion is only a medical procedure.

Roe v. Wade
Main article: Roe v. Wade
The United States Supreme Court membership in 1973.

In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy. In its opinion it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The court held that a fetus was not a person under the Constitution, and that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Valerie]

Oh, I get it Val...you are only looking at the new law as pertaining to this one narrow case. Well, it doesn't. It would also apply to a woman taking an extremely hot bath or swallowing some bitter herbs if she missed her period.

btw...I saw nothing in your Roe v. Wade blurb that said abortion is only a medical procedure.

Who would ever press charges and prove her intent in that type of situation?



What about the non-clinical self induced abortion failure?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Oh, I get it Val...you are only looking at the new law as pertaining to this one narrow case. Well, it doesn't. It would also apply to a woman taking an extremely hot bath or swallowing some bitter herbs if she missed her period.

Again, this goes back to the initial amendment I proposed, which would make this law applicable only after the point at which the law otherwise restricts abortions.