The Conservative War On Women

realityhack wrote:

I think it was to me.
I over-reacted, I made an unfounded assumption regarding motive, and I acted rather meanly on that assumption.
So I was wrong and I apologize.

I do think relevant information that heavily influences the context of a quote should be included but I was wrong to assume anything but pure honest mistake.

Tanglebones, I apologize. Sorry it took me so long to do so.

One more pass at this, and you'll be able to get at an apology that doesn't include a backhanded insult

If that's as good as you can give, I'll take it, though.

Xeknos wrote:

As has been mentioned above, I'm not sure if the meth use is really relevant to the discussion, as it establishes a fairly dangerous precedent to prosecute someone already in a great deal of anguish over losing a child.

I don't know that it changes wither I think the prosecution is stupid... but it is definitely relevant. It takes the discussion from:
Should women be prosecuted for miscarriages? (wow... Insane-o-land)
to
Should a women who can be proven to have done something that caused a miscarriage be prosecuted? (still dangerous ground, I disagree and think they should not prosecute but it is a very different question because...)
eventually you reach the point of:
If abortion is illegal at x point in the pregnancy can a woman be tried for intentionally (assume there is proof) causing a miscarriage?

The fact that it is drug use ads the additional issues of:
(whatever we thing SHOULD be the law) she was commuting a crime just by doing the drugs
The drugs are an addiction which you can't expect someone to kick like they might quit a particular activity.

The anguish is not IMO meaningful to the legal discussion. We shouldn't not charge someone for a crime because it hurt them. Like not charging someone for reckless endangerment because their child died when they left a gun lying around.
It is of course real, and the judge might take such things into account on sentencing, but I don't think we should when choosing to charge or not charge.

Tanglebones wrote:

One more pass at this, and you'll be able to get at an apology that doesn't include a backhanded insult

If that's as good as you can give, I'll take it, though.

I think you made a mistake. I stick with that.
Yes my actions were not warranted, and I apologize for that but we will have to disagree on wither you also made a mistake (although a MUCH smaller one).

I am not sure what else I can say and remain honest with you.

GET ON WITH IT!

If I give meth to my dog and kill it I cant be charged with manslaughter. Or murder, or negligent homicide, or anything like that. A dog is not a legal person so none of those apply! A fetus isn't a legal person either, so that is also a no go.

Now there are animal cruelty and endangerment laws, so the question is whether fetus cruelty and endangerment laws are valid ideas (which is pretty much what people have been discussing here). Whether or not those laws are a good idea, until they are implemented this prosecutor should stop legislating from his office.

Well, Mississippi does in fact have fetal homicide laws. Most states do, in fact.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...

Prosecutors, elected officials, seeking to stretch the meaning of statutes is nothing unique to this circumstance. You get elected as a prosecutor or as a judge by being "tough on criminals." I doubt that this prosecutor is concerned about the office losing the support of the drug addict, young mother demographic.

For me, I take this from a completely different angle of useless laws that punish junkies and addicts for being junkies and addicts, when what could have prevented the whole mess was intervention and rehabilitation.

The thing we need to establish is intent. Did the woman take the meth with the intent to kill the fetus? If so, we can maybe have a conversation about it (though Yonder's point that a fetus isn't a legal person is a good point.)

If the fetus accidentally died due to her meth use, we also don't have a case, since we don't prosecute people for falling down a flight of stairs while pregnant. If this woman has a meth problem, that needs to be addressed and dealt with through rehabilitation and treatment, not locking her away forever using drug use and the (presumably) accidental death of her unborn baby as an excuse.

Honestly I don't think we need to establish intent. Seriously think about how mentally and physically damaging that experience would be if it were you. I don't know how you recover from those scars or how you are not considered mentally ill or desperately addicted enough to warrant medical intervention.

I mean I guess you could consider someone like that a criminal if you are the type of person that thinks things like suicide victims are criminals.

(this is not an attack on you Xek at all)

I just want a clear line drawn where not every person that does something horribly wrong is a criminal and deserves time behind bars or state mandated repercussions.

Is the father being charged for recklessly impregnating a womb hostile to his seed?

I can't see it at work, but I assume that's a Monty Python YouTube clip to match me... and greatly appreciate KG for it.

Edit: Oh no, it isn't... missed opportunity.

This conversation is getting disturbing.

It sure would be nice if birth control weren't so demonized in conservative culture to the point where it's difficult for anyone with mental health, drug, or poverty issues to get on the pill and avoid all this worry and judgement in the first place.

Xeknos wrote:

The thing we need to establish is intent. Did the woman take the meth with the intent to kill the fetus? If so, we can maybe have a conversation about it (though Yonder's point that a fetus isn't a legal person is a good point.)

If the fetus accidentally died due to her meth use, we also don't have a case, since we don't prosecute people for falling down a flight of stairs while pregnant. If this woman has a meth problem, that needs to be addressed and dealt with through rehabilitation and treatment, not locking her away forever using drug use and the (presumably) accidental death of her unborn baby as an excuse.

Emphasis added. An interesting parallel, but one I can see as being considered invalid in public opinion (and clearly invalid in the Attorney General's opinion) as I suspect most people would see her usage of drugs as a choice she made... even if the end result was the accidental death of her child.

I dunno... I have issues with fetal homicide laws... I like the idea of them being used in the case of murders where harm was clearly meant to both the mother and child... but I have seen cases of them being applied to like car wrecks caused by intoxication where the perpetrator obviously didn't even know the mother or that she was pregnant.

I didn't take it as an attack, but I am sort of trying to build a bridge between where realityhack is coming from and my own position. I'm not sold on any kind of fetal homicide bill at all, because not only are things like intent are so hard to determine, but they also open dangerous doors to criminalizing abortions, which is absolutely untenable in a modern society. And, as you mentioned (and as I attempted to allude to earlier) attempting to establish intent is only furthering the suffering of someone who has already experienced a traumatic loss.

I had hoped to make the reluctance of that concession known when I added the point that because fetuses aren't technically humans yet, you can't treat the death of one as such. These events are tragedies, certainly, but accidental ones. The reason why I drew the parallel with falling down the stairs is because I think that the meth use was more habitual and not an act intended to terminate the pregnancy.

I just wanted to make sure that you weren't thinking I was refering to you specifically rather than a general "you".

I just wanted to put the picture in peoples minds of someone that desperate or with that lack of faculties or under such a degree of coersion or manipulation to think overdosing is a good way to get rid of a pregnancy is an option on the table. And I am not even talking about going to where it could be seen as a good idea.

It bothers me that there are people out there that will jump first to the conclusion that it is a lapse in judgment and ignore circumstances that don't support lack of judgment.

Demosthenes wrote:
Xeknos wrote:

The thing we need to establish is intent. Did the woman take the meth with the intent to kill the fetus? If so, we can maybe have a conversation about it (though Yonder's point that a fetus isn't a legal person is a good point.)

If the fetus accidentally died due to her meth use, we also don't have a case, since we don't prosecute people for falling down a flight of stairs while pregnant. If this woman has a meth problem, that needs to be addressed and dealt with through rehabilitation and treatment, not locking her away forever using drug use and the (presumably) accidental death of her unborn baby as an excuse.

Emphasis added. An interesting parallel, but one I can see as being considered invalid in public opinion (and clearly invalid in the Attorney General's opinion) as I suspect most people would see her usage of drugs as a choice she made... even if the end result was the accidental death of her child.

It might make more sense to compare the situation to a woman who lost her baby because she had a disease or an infection instead of falling down the stairs. The Attorney General would never move to prosecute a woman for fetal homicide because she got sick and had a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where drug addiction is still largely viewed as terrible personal moral flaw and a weakness of character instead of a treatable disease.

fangblackbone wrote:

I just wanted to put the picture in peoples minds of someone that desperate or with that lack of faculties or under such a degree of coersion or manipulation to think overdosing is a good way to get rid of a pregnancy is an option on the table. And I am not even talking about going to where it could be seen as a good idea.

It certainly might be possible, but I don't think meth is reknown for its ability to instantly cause miscarriages. Pregnant women who are habitual users of meth do run the risk of miscarriage, but so does every women. And considering the highly addictive nature of meth, it's very doubtful that someone who has traces of the drug in their system is a one-time user.

I believe there are a load of medical groups who have filed amici curiae briefs in this case explaining that 1) miscarriages are fairly common, 2) doctors still don't understand what causes all those miscarriages, 3) there's little to no science linking drug use to miscarriages, and 4) it's really a f*cking stupid idea to start threatening any woman who miscarriages with murder charges.

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is born.

Is a woman allowed to undergo a safe medical procedure to alter or remove part of her body? Yes. If she harms part of her body accidentally, is she prosecuted? No. Is someone else allowed to damage part of her body? Of course not.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately for some groups, this involves giving the woman agency instead of treating her as a fetus transportation unit.

Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is born.

Is a woman allowed to undergo a safe medical procedure to alter or remove part of her body? Yes. If she harms part of her body accidentally, is she prosecuted? No. Is someone else allowed to damage part of her body? Of course not.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately for some groups, this involves giving the woman agency instead of treating her as a fetus transportation unit.

That... is genius.

Demyx wrote:

giving the woman agency instead of treating her as a fetus transportation unit.

But then you wouldn't get to wear the "wee-woo, wee-woo" FTU sirens and lights.

Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is born.

This makes so goddamn much sense. I just wish love for Jayzus also constituted love for things that make sense.

OG_slinger wrote:

... 1) miscarriages are fairly common, 2) doctors still don't understand what causes all those miscarriages, 3) there's little to no science linking drug use to miscarriages, and 4) it's really a f*cking stupid idea to start threatening any woman who miscarriages with murder charges.

+1 to those breifs

I don't have tooooo much of a problem if you could absolutely prove intent, AND it was after the legal period for an abortion, AND there was access to an abortion during the period AND did I mention absolute proof of intent?

Then you could charge them with performing an illegal abortion and nothing more. Period.

OTOH I think this is so rare as to be a non-issue and we should probably just offer the person who felt the need to do it counseling services and address whatever made them that desperate before they end up hurting themselves.

I think Demyx probably has the right idea. Just treat the fetus as part of the woman's body until birth.

Of course I am not a woman. I would love to hear some thoughts on this from the POV of various women.

OG_slinger wrote:

I believe there are a load of medical groups who have filed amici curiae briefs in this case explaining that 1) miscarriages are fairly common, 2) doctors still don't understand what causes all those miscarriages, 3) there's little to no science linking drug use to miscarriages, and 4) it's really a f*cking stupid idea to start threatening any woman who miscarriages with murder charges.

If there were any consistent link between meth use and miscarriages, there would be a lot fewer babies born into sh*tty situations in Hilo than there are now.

Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is out.

The only problem with this is that it allows for abortions when the cold has been completely born but the feet are still in.

mudbunny wrote:
Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is out.

The only problem with this is that it allows for abortions when the cold has been completely born but the feet are still in.

No, it doesn't, because of the umbilical cord.

Is that even a realistic possibility we need to consider?

I don't think so, but I figured to just answer the concern on it's face because I don't have time to deal with any ulterior motives.

mudbunny wrote:
Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is out.

The only problem with this is that it allows for abortions when the cold has been completely born but the feet are still in.

I think that there is a distinctness here in criminal laws, and laws allowing for the non-medical termination of viable pregnancies-which is a realm few people would ever go into.

momgamer wrote:

I don't think so, but I figured to just answer the concern on it's face because I don't have time to deal with any ulterior motives.

I apologize if my wording gave the impression that I was carrying an ulterior motive or something similar. No other ulterior motive was intended. The wording that was proposed (not until fully born) is similar (IIRC) to the current law up here in Canada.

Demyx wrote:

You don't need fetal homicide laws. The easy way to resolve this issue would be to treat the fetus as part of a woman's body until it is born.

Is a woman allowed to undergo a safe medical procedure to alter or remove part of her body? Yes. If she harms part of her body accidentally, is she prosecuted? No. Is someone else allowed to damage part of her body? Of course not.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately for some groups, this involves giving the woman agency instead of treating her as a fetus transportation unit.

+1

What if I left some skin cells in my mother's womb? Can she still murder me? We should definitely make sure that that's not allowed in our Federal legal code.

Yonder wrote:

What if I left some skin cells in my mother's womb? Can she still murder me? We should definitely make sure that that's not allowed in our Federal legal code.

argument ad absurdum