Have a miscarriage in Utah, go to jail?

[Psi Baba]

That's right, not abortion, miscarriage:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/utah-ab...9955517&page=1

I can't be the only one who thinks this is just totally bat**** insane.

[WildCat]

Bad cases beget bad laws...

[Safe-Keeper]

Sigh.

Quote:

The bill was prompted by the case of a pregnant teenager last year who paid someone to beat her, hoping to cause a late term abortion.
But critics argue that allowing homicide charges if a woman's "reckless behavior" causes the unborn child to die opens up the possibility that prosecutors could seek a murder conviction against women who miscarry after not wearing their seatbelts or returning to a partner who has a history of physical abuse.

Righty, so teens resort to such drastic measures for abortions, and what do these idiots people do? Do they say "oh my god, how horrible! We need to loosen the restrictions on abortions so young girls don't have to do such dreadful things to themselves!". No, they tighten the net even more.

Tragic.

[Beerina]

I am offended by the law attempting to compensate for evolution in this manner.

[Marquis de Carabas]

This is a something or other of justice; I just can't think of what.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Righty, so teens resort to such drastic measures for abortions, and what do these idiots people do? Do they say "oh my god, how horrible! We need to loosen the restrictions on abortions so young girls don't have to do such dreadful things to themselves!". No, they tighten the net even more.

Yes, I've always thought there's too much abuse of toddlers in our system, too. Let's decriminalize it and let the doctors beat the children instead; then the parents won't have to suffer.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Yes, I've always thought there's too much abuse of toddlers in our system, too. Let's decriminalize it and let the doctors beat the children instead; then the parents won't have to suffer.

...the ****?

[JWideman]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, I've always thought there's too much abuse of toddlers in our system, too. Let's decriminalize it and let the doctors beat the children instead; then the parents won't have to suffer.

Drugs are bad, okay?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

...the ****?

Well, clearly whenever too many children suffer abuse, the proper response is to encourage the abusers to carry out the abuse safely, in controlled conditions. That way, the abusers don't get hurt.
I've long advocated the legalization of assassination for the same reason. If I need a friend killed, why should I suffer the risks of harm to myself doing it? Get a professional involved, I say.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Well, clearly whenever too many children suffer abuse, the proper response is to encourage the abusers to carry out the abuse safely, in controlled conditions. That way, the abusers don't get hurt.
I've long advocated the legalization of assassination for the same reason. If I need a friend killed, why should I suffer the risks of harm to myself doing it? Get a professional involved, I say.

Apples and Oranges much?

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Moss

Apples and Oranges much?

Also the reason why I loathe the abortion debate. Virtually never is it a rational discussion. Instead you have die-hard opponents who portray pictures of stillborn fetuses as "aborted children", call abortion murder, make oddball analogies to bank robbery and murder (or in this case the physical abuse of children, of all things), and basically demonstrate a complete inability to take in the subject matter in a rational, level-headed way.

Of course it's not the only subject that draws this much emotion (gun debate is another example), but of the ones I end up in on these forums, it's certainly the worst one. Every time I see an abortion thread I tell myself not to enter it, and every time I regret doing so. Will I ever learn?

.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Sigh.

Righty, so teens resort to such drastic measures for abortions, and what do these idiots people do? Do they say "oh my god, how horrible! We need to loosen the restrictions on abortions so young girls don't have to do such dreadful things to themselves!". No, they tighten the net even more.

Tragic.

Really? I mean, I don't disagree with your conclusion. I don't know the abortion laws in Utah either. But she was seven months pregnant and hired somebody to beat her baby to death in her womb and walked. Come on, man.

Well anyway, being charged, being prosecuted, and being convicted are all different things. I don't know what the bill says either way, but I doubt an accidental miscarriage and an overzealous prosecutor would convince a jury and I wouldn't be particularly worried were I a woman in Utah.

[Arus808]

Well, the Originator of the Bill made his opinion known:

Quote:

Romero said he also has serious concerns about the bill's underlying effect of allowing the state to put an even tighter rein on abortion rights. The proposal includes a new state definition of abortion as "only to a medical procedure carried out by a physician, or through a substance used under the direction of a physician."

"This type of attention on the woman, I think, may be part of this whole general assault on a woman's right to choose," he said.

It's a charge Wimmer calls a fair one.

"If he's insinuating because I ran this bill, because I'm pro-life and anti abortion and I'm doing everything in my power to restrict abortions in Utah, then he's absolutely correct," Wimmer said.

"The intent was to make sure that the cases like the Vernal situation does not happen again, and we also narrowly defined abortion to further restrict abortions even more than we already have," he said.

So yes, he wants to control women's reproductive rights; along with redefining abortion in this case. He's basing this entire bill on the actions of what seemed to be a disturbed and distraught 17 year old girl. How many young girls in Utah will now be visiting other states, or hiding their pregnancy (and dumping their babies in trash bins) will this bill now cause?

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Also the reason why I loathe the abortion debate. Virtually never is it a rational discussion. Instead you have die-hard opponents who portray pictures of stillborn fetuses as "aborted children", call abortion murder, make oddball analogies to bank robbery and murder (or in this case the physical abuse of children, of all things), and basically demonstrate a complete inability to take in the subject matter in a rational, level-headed way.

Of course it's not the only subject that draws this much emotion (gun debate is another example), but of the ones I end up in on these forums, it's certainly the worst one. Every time I see an abortion thread I tell myself not to enter it, and every time I regret doing so. Will I ever learn?

No, probably not.

One group considers an embryo to be a baby the second the sperm hits the egg.

Another group considers anything up to a screaming just-delivered baby to be a mass of cells no more alive or important than a tumour or a hangnail.

If your opinion is anywhere between these two extremes, you will be either be dismissed as a hypocrite, or you will be accused of secretly holding one of these viewpoints and lying about it. And then you will probably abandon the thread as hopeless.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Well, clearly whenever too many children suffer abuse, the proper response is to encourage the abusers to carry out the abuse safely, in controlled conditions. That way, the abusers don't get hurt.
I've long advocated the legalization of assassination for the same reason. If I need a friend killed, why should I suffer the risks of harm to myself doing it? Get a professional involved, I say.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to concede that a legal and social environment which would drive a teenager to have herself beaten as a response to an unintended pregnancy might bear some responsibility?

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't concede that about the people who helped construct that environment.

I guess you think that increasing the punitive atmosphere of an already difficult issue is going to be beneficial.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Really? I mean, I don't disagree with your conclusion. I don't know the abortion laws in Utah either. But she was seven months pregnant and hired somebody to beat her baby to death in her womb and walked. Come on, man.

Well anyway, being charged, being prosecuted, and being convicted are all different things. I don't know what the bill says either way, but I doubt an accidental miscarriage and an overzealous prosecutor would convince a jury and I wouldn't be particularly worried were I a woman in Utah.

I wish I shared your assurance, but the evidence suggests that when election season approaches overzealous prosecutors are capable of the most depressing lapses of simple humanity, much less ethical behavior. There is already an abundance of legal tools for them to abuse. It isn't needful to provide more.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I wish I shared your assurance, but the evidence suggests that when election season approaches overzealous prosecutors are capable of the most depressing lapses of simple humanity, much less ethical behavior. There are already an abundance of legal tools for them to abuse. It isn't needful to provide more.

I agree. It is important that the laws not be open to abuse if possible, but clearly something was wrong with the laws they had now.

[Toke]

Legal abortion is a rather new thing, just look at the good old days.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Moss

Apples and Oranges much?

So often that his avatar is of an armed fruit salad.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

...the ****?

Exactly.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I wish I shared your assurance, but the evidence suggests that when election season approaches overzealous prosecutors are capable of the most depressing lapses of simple humanity, much less ethical behavior. There is already an abundance of legal tools for them to abuse. It isn't needful to provide more.

The bill requires "reckless behavior" to occur. A prosecutor can't just charge because a miscarriage occured, the woman has to have done something to deliberately induce the miscarriage in a reckless manner. The US already has a law for those that kill people outside the womb due to their "reckless behavior", it's called Third Degree Murder. Utah already has a law protecting the unborn from deliberate death in cases other than state approved abortion, so why not close the loophole that means that while the one performing the illegal action (the attempted killing of an unborn child) can be charged and convicted, the one that paid for and assisted in the action, can't be?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The bill requires "reckless behavior" to occur. A prosecutor can't just charge because a miscarriage occured, the woman has to have done something to deliberately induce the miscarriage in a reckless manner. The US already has a law for those that kill people outside the womb due to their "reckless behavior", it's called Third Degree Murder. Utah already has a law protecting the unborn from deliberate death in cases other than state approved abortion, so why not close the loophole that means that while the one performing the illegal action (the attempted killing of an unborn child) can be charged and convicted, the one that paid for and assisted in the action, can't be?

I agree with this. Deliberately destroying a foetus which would be viable outside the womb deserves some sanction.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

That's right, not abortion, miscarriage:

No. Not miscarriage. Stillbirth as a result of intentional blunt-force trauma.
People have been charged with various homicide charges when they cause the death of a viable fetus, pre-birth. The thread title therefore seems misleading and designed to provoke an emotional response.

Don't mess with me; I've just spent four days watching old SVU episodes sequentially.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Really? I mean, I don't disagree with your conclusion. I don't know the abortion laws in Utah either. But she was seven months pregnant and hired somebody to beat her baby to death in her womb and walked. Come on, man.

:facepalm: Oh, damn, now I feel stupid. Thought it was another case of someone carrying a fetus that was less than 12 weeks old, and had to resort to a crude "homemade abortion" because abortion laws were too strict for anything else.

Quote:

One group considers an embryo to be a baby the second the sperm hits the egg.

Another group considers anything up to a screaming just-delivered baby to be a mass of cells no more alive or important than a tumour or a hangnail.

I tihnk you may be a little off on the second group.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The bill requires "reckless behavior" to occur. A prosecutor can't just charge because a miscarriage occured, the woman has to have done something to deliberately induce the miscarriage in a reckless manner.

So reckless but not intentional cases would work. So then it becomes a question of what is reckless for a pregnant woman to do that could cause miscarriage.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by slingblade

No. Not miscarriage. Stillbirth as a result of intentional blunt-force trauma.
People have been charged with various homicide charges when they cause the death of a viable fetus, pre-birth. The thread title therefore seems misleading and designed to provoke an emotional response.

Don't mess with me; I've just spent four days watching old SVU episodes sequentially.

The thing is that often the mother is protected in those laws, so the man who beat her to get her to miscarry would be guilty but she wouldn't.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Also the reason why I loathe the abortion debate. Virtually never is it a rational discussion. Instead you have die-hard opponents who portray pictures of stillborn fetuses as "aborted children", call abortion murder, make oddball analogies to bank robbery and murder (or in this case the physical abuse of children, of all things), and basically demonstrate a complete inability to take in the subject matter in a rational, level-headed way.

Of course it's not the only subject that draws this much emotion (gun debate is another example), but of the ones I end up in on these forums, it's certainly the worst one. Every time I see an abortion thread I tell myself not to enter it, and every time I regret doing so. Will I ever learn?

.

Take my advice. I'm not using it.

[skip]

If the governor signs this bill into law, then I’m sure that all the women of this state would be entitled to free heath care and education classes so as to not inadvertently do something that may, by their ignorance or lack or care induce an miscarriage… LoL ya right.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The bill requires "reckless behavior" to occur. A prosecutor can't just charge because a miscarriage occured, the woman has to have done something to deliberately induce the miscarriage in a reckless manner. The US already has a law for those that kill people outside the womb due to their "reckless behavior", it's called Third Degree Murder. Utah already has a law protecting the unborn from deliberate death in cases other than state approved abortion, so why not close the loophole that means that while the one performing the illegal action (the attempted killing of an unborn child) can be charged and convicted, the one that paid for and assisted in the action, can't be?

I think that "reckless" and "deliberate" are less synonymous than is suggested here.

The potential for prosecutor abuse exists in that conflation.

I am unconvinced that additional statutes are truly required to sufficiently address this alleged "loophole", at least to the point where providing the potential for additional loopholes to be used by less-than-scrupulous prosecutors is justified.

This stinks of a typical "Think of the children!" ploy to add more tools to the toolbox used to terrorize pro-choice advocates. It seems to me that the very circumstances of the episode being addressed by this law are proof that such intimidation already exists in abundance.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Well, clearly whenever too many children suffer abuse, the proper response is to encourage the abusers to carry out the abuse safely, in controlled conditions. That way, the abusers don't get hurt.
I've long advocated the legalization of assassination for the same reason. If I need a friend killed, why should I suffer the risks of harm to myself doing it? Get a professional involved, I say.

What your proposing is called revenge. You see it as murder so you feel that the person should have to take a risk in order to do it, like one does with committing murder, this is a very slanted view of the world, and it takes out of consideration one important factor. And in my personal opinion shows violent streak in christian beliefs.

It is not your body. It is not my body, it is the girl's body. And if she wants to do something to it, that is her business. I mean every time i have any type of sexual contact that dosn't end in pregnancy, i am taking away the chance for a child to be born. But because i am a guy that is okay. I can masturbate as much as i want, and no one sheds a tear for those children that could have been. But a woman decides to interupt the process, and suddenly it is everyone else's right to tell her what to do.

Let's flip the situation, a fundamentalist woman is going to die as well as her child if she tries to give birth. But she wants to try and have the child , is it my right to tell her she should get an abortion, so 2 lives are not lost? No it is not, my opinion stops having weight once it comes to someone else's body.

This is not at you specifically avalon, but the anti abortion stance shows a rampant sexisim within the christian ideology. It would be a lot easier for me to walk to a sperm bank and do my buisness in a cup to make sure that the process isn't interupted, than it would be for a girl to, lets say have the child and give it up for adoption. But i don't see any christian groups pressing sperm banks to take all donors so that these children that could have been get the chance to be. I don't see any christians protesting outside of adult theaters with signs against masturbation, and i to the best of my knowledge have never heard of a wack job killing a porn actor for wasting so many possible children.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

You see it as murder so you feel that the person should have to take a risk in order to do it, like one does with committing murder,

No. I think that it's murder so I think the laws should be set up to discourage it, not protect it -- like with other murders.
Abusing a child is wrong whether the child is in the womb or outside it, and I think trying to protect someone who inflicts this sort of abuse is equally repugnant in both cases.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

I can masturbate as much as i want, and no one sheds a tear for those children that could have been. But a woman decides to interupt the process, and suddenly it is everyone else's right to tell her what to do.

See what I mean? If you disagree with the pro-choice person, then obviously, you should consider sperm to be "children that could have been" and you're a hypocrite for for not shedding a tear for them.

There is more straw in the abortion debate than in all of the creationist's museums.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No. I think that it's murder so I think the laws should be set up to discourage it, not protect it -- like with other murders.
Abusing a child is wrong whether the child is in the womb or outside it, and I think trying to protect someone who inflicts this sort of abuse is equally repugnant in both cases.

Yes, now you state that, but in the bit i quoted, you are speaking of harm, not legal action. You were sarcastically stating that we should keep abusers from harm, no mention of legal action was made.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Madalch

See what I mean? If you disagree with the pro-choice person, then obviously, you should consider sperm to be "children that could have been" and you're a hypocrite for for not shedding a tear for them.

There is more straw in the abortion debate than in all of the creationist's museums.

I don't think anyone "should" consider sperm as children that should have been. But if we are stating that the termination of birth is bad at any point in the process, then why does the starting line get drawn when it is the woman's responsibility?

I could care less that someone has a set of beliefs, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. But if your going to start telling people what to do with their bodies, why only women?

[Toke]

Looks like Monty Python time.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by slingblade

No. Not miscarriage. Stillbirth as a result of intentional blunt-force trauma.
People have been charged with various homicide charges when they cause the death of a viable fetus, pre-birth. The thread title therefore seems misleading and designed to provoke an emotional response.

Don't mess with me; I've just spent four days watching old SVU episodes sequentially.

Yes, but usually it's a case of someone other than the mother doing this. If a mother does it herself, that's pretty much abortion, I'd say.

For example, if some guy kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with two murders. However, if that same woman goes and gets an abortion, she can't be charged with sheeyit.

At least, until now in the state of Utah.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

What your proposing is called revenge. You see it as murder so you feel that the person should have to take a risk in order to do it, like one does with committing murder, this is a very slanted view of the world, and it takes out of consideration one important factor. And in my personal opinion shows violent streak in christian beliefs.

It is not your body. It is not my body, it is the girl's body. And if she wants to do something to it, that is her business. I mean every time i have any type of sexual contact that dosn't end in pregnancy, i am taking away the chance for a child to be born. But because i am a guy that is okay. I can masturbate as much as i want, and no one sheds a tear for those children that could have been. But a woman decides to interupt the process, and suddenly it is everyone else's right to tell her what to do.

Let's flip the situation, a fundamentalist woman is going to die as well as her child if she tries to give birth. But she wants to try and have the child , is it my right to tell her she should get an abortion, so 2 lives are not lost? No it is not, my opinion stops having weight once it comes to someone else's body.

This is not at you specifically avalon, but the anti abortion stance shows a rampant sexisim within the christian ideology. It would be a lot easier for me to walk to a sperm bank and do my buisness in a cup to make sure that the process isn't interupted, than it would be for a girl to, lets say have the child and give it up for adoption. But i don't see any christian groups pressing sperm banks to take all donors so that these children that could have been get the chance to be. I don't see any christians protesting outside of adult theaters with signs against masturbation, and i to the best of my knowledge have never heard of a wack job killing a porn actor for wasting so many possible children.

I'm for choice, but I would personally choose not to abort. I dislike abortion as a form of birth control, and that increases the closer the woman gets to term. Most people do something about birth control beforehand, but for those who don't, I'm absolutely positive that a few weeks is plenty of time to decide whether or not you want a baby and do something about it.

You are a complete and utter idiot when it comes to the reproductive system. Women have periods. That's the reproductive analog of a guy masturbating without reproducing. The case that's being discussed is a fertilized egg that has grown into a viable baby at 7 months. She had someone beat her stomach in order to cause enough harm to the baby to kill it and miscarry. If you don't see the difference between beating a baby to death and beating off, then you are a moron in a few other areas besides just reproduction.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

I don't think anyone "should" consider sperm as children that should have been. But if we are stating that the termination of birth is bad at any point in the process, then why does the starting line get drawn when it is the woman's responsibility?

I could care less that someone has a set of beliefs, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. But if your going to start telling people what to do with their bodies, why only women?

I don't know if you noticed this, dude, but only women get pregnant. So obvious.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Really? I mean, I don't disagree with your conclusion. I don't know the abortion laws in Utah either. But she was seven months pregnant and hired somebody to beat her baby to death in her womb and walked. Come on, man.

I don't see a problem here. Is masochism illegal in Utah? Only one individual was harmed in this event.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

Yes, but usually it's a case of someone other than the mother doing this. If a mother does it herself, that's pretty much abortion, I'd say.

It's not a miscarriage, though, is it? You must have missed where I made it plain that the word I'm quibbling with in the thread title is "miscarriage."
The OP is trying to deceive by implying that a spontaneous abortion, also known as a miscarriage, is now illegal in Utah.

That's dirty pool, and we all know it.

Quote:

For example, if some guy kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with two murders. However, if that same woman goes and gets an abortion, she can't be charged with sheeyit.

At least, until now in the state of Utah.

Nah, now you're playing too fast and loose. State laws on abortion vary, and what's legal in one state might very well not be legal in another. A theraputic abortion at 7 months may not be legal except in cases of harm to the mother or severe defect in the fetus, or what have you. You can't just lay down that blanket statement and imply women can terminate their pregnancies any old time they like throughout their terms, cuz it just ain't so, bub.

I live on the Utah border. You can smell the woo from here.