Discussion for article #234801
Somehow? There is a smattering of logic here.
RWNJ logic:
One mentally-deficient woman perpetrates a grisly, whacked-out crime on one pregnant woman.
Therefore we must enact a mentally-deficient law with potential to affect 320M individuals.
Makes perfect sense.
To RWNJs.
jw1
See all the smiling faces holding the anti-abortion signs? Put a condom machine in a middle school and youâll see the same smiling faces holding signs blasting fact based sex-ed and teen access to birth control. They are the same smiling faces that cheered Rush when he called Sandra Fluke a slut.
This is not about stopping abortion, itâs about controlling a womanâs sexual freedom.
Fuck these people, and their fascism.
ââŚgrislyâŚâ
So mowing down dozens of children in school isnât sufficient enough for a law requiring background checks on the sales of weapons â which most people want â but one freak with a knife is enough for us to establish that government doesnât derive its power from the people, but rather from itself?
I noticed yesterday my nieghbor was flying a drone over my yard, and could have been taking pictures of my soon-to-be garden. Itâs time to make all aircraft illegal to protect my right to privacy!
And just what are you planning to grow? (Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.)
Clearly, you need to get yourself an anti-aircraft battery. Second Amendment!! Freedom!!!
Iâd tell you but if you wait the pictures will be available online!
This is grisly, and I apologize in advance, but I thought late-term abortion was already illegal?
Seems like that would be appropriate if the fetus was just weeks from delivery.
Personhood law: a bad solution is search of a sufficiently grotesque crime.
" Critics say that because the baby was allegedly heard gasping after it had been removed from its motherâs body ⌠" .
The operative word being â allegedly â .
RTFA.
âThis case may fit the definition of âfirst-degreeâ unlawful termination of a pregnancy, which requires proof of intent. Itâs a class three felony punishable by 10 to 32 years in prison.â
Dubbed the âBrady Amendment,â activists cited the emotional story of Heather Surovik, a mother who lost her baby just weeks prior to his due date after she was hit by a car driven by a drunk driver.
Michelle Wilkins, at nearly eight months pregnant, went to a strangerâs home to pick up baby clothes that were listed on Craigslist, when Dynel Lane, who lived there, allegedly stabbed Wilkins, cutting open her stomach to remove the fetus. Lane, according to police reports, may have been attempting to pass off the fetus as her own child and had been faking a pregnancy in preparation, but it did not survive the attack.
âJusticeâ for Brady, according to bill supports, would involve revising the legal code to ensure that a person is defined at beginning at the point of conception.
So basically they are taking the stories of mothers having a baby taken from them just weeks from delivery against their will and trying to use the sympathy people feel for those women to justify denying other women in completely unrelated circumstances any choice in what to do with their own bodies? Asshole isnât a strong enough word for the type of people who would try and use events like these to score points for their entirely unrelated personal political bugaboo.
The idea of an abortion ban makes them smile, because what RWNJ wouldnât want more unwanted babies that they can happily kill later, by 1) dressing them in a uniform and sending them into battle, 2) denying basic rights and health care to, because their parents are too poor to afford it, 3) executing them after they commit a crime out of desperation, or 4) putting them in front of an angry cop, especially if that kid is black.
Just be honest RWNJs. For you, life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
There is a crime here beyond what she inflicted on the woman. It is the opposite of what the anti-abortion nut jobs think. The woman was deprived of her right to choose. She chose to have baby and was, in fact, lured to the place by the offer to sell some baby clothes. It is also an empirical question whether the fetus would have been viable had labor been medically induced.
Perhaps not, but one friendly request that he not do that again and next time it happens the 12-gauge with birdshot comes out. As they are almost all equipped with cameras, they are very much an invasion of privac, and it has nothing to do with paranoia so much as common curtesy.
These things are going to be a headache in the courts as they become more common as toys and as commercial devices.
The Republicans never give any serious thought to the ramifications of this sort of legislation. Would a fertilized egg have property rights? Could a fertilized egg sue or be sued in a court of law? What happens when a wealthy man dies, leaves his adult children nothing, but wills his entire estate to his trophy wifeâs frozen embryos?
Iâm sure there are other potential consequences; those are just the things that occur to me after about 30 seconds of thoughtâŚwhich is more thought than those who are proposing such bills have given to it.
âŚwho do your reckon these folks want as their AyahTellYa What To Believe when TeaOcracy dictates mores from the Cabinet of REligion?
A) TimTeaBow
B) MikeHuckaBee
C) PatRobertson
D) All of Thee Above
Yet another situation where wingnut simply have no concept of consent or of women as people. Plenty of the folks who are virulently against contraception and abortion are fine with forced sterilization of the âunfitâ. If they wanted to make it a crime to attack a pregnant woman and kill her fetus, they would have plenty of support from the sane people around them. But oddly enough, they havenât done that.
⌠Is every miscarriage now a possible murder and required to be investigated as such?
Yes. Once we cut through the emotional crap, this is the heart of the issue in my opinion. Peopleâs religious beliefs and gut reactions cannot be dismissed, but they are irrelevant to the nature of the crime.
In my opinion, the issue is clear. A pregnant woman has the absolute right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. If she chooses a legal medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy, she has every right to do so. If she chooses to have a child, she has every right to do so. The criminal in this case is the one who committed violence against a woman and stole her right to choose.
I fully understand why some see abortion as murder, but many actions in our society weigh the rights of one over the rights of another, including the right to life. I think the right of a pregnant woman to choose outweighs the right of a fetus or the perceived Orwellian ârightâ of others to force her to give birth to an unwanted child. Others disagree. To date, the SCOTUS agrees with me.