asterroc | (no subject)

[blink]

[blinkblink]

[twitch]

A bit of google-hunting revealed that they attempted measures previously that would target only gay couples, but they were struck down by the courts, so this's how they're getting around it. Isn't it lovely?

Oh, and Colorado has Amendment 28 which would define a "person" at the moment of fertilization, making miscarriages a case of manslaughter, or women who have an alcoholic drink the day after fertilization, not realizing they're pregnant, can be brought up on charges of reckless endangerment. Not to mention that women can be forced to have C-sections (major surgery) if a doctor wants to call the cops on her. This one's being opposed by many pro-life groups.

How would it make miscarriages a case of manslaughter? That doesn't make any sense.

I guess one could argue it was caused by something the mother did. Be really hard to get twelve people to believe that beyond a reasonable doubt (I'd say it's pretty much built in on that one), but they could still file charges.

AFAIK while people have the right to a trial by jury, people often waive that right in favor of a decision by a judge, as there are circumstances under which the judge may give a more favorable sentence. In addition, the defendant can plea bargain and get a conviction that way. So the prosecution doesn't necessarily have to convince 12 people.

Depends on the circumstances that caused the miscarriage. Since the fetus is a person, if the person dies somehow (such as a miscarriage), there could be an investigation into how the person died. If it turns out it's from some action the mother took (such as continuing to drink alcohol through the pregnancy), then the mother is responsible for killing a person. Such is generally considered either manslaughter or homicide.

I don't know how commonly this would be applied if the law passed, but there is precedent for it: Utah apparently has a law defining personhood at some point during the gestation period, and the Melissa Roland was brought up on charges of First Degree Felony Murder for delaying a C-section which lead to the stillbirth of one of her children (the other twin survived). She plead guilty to a lesser charge of Child Endangerment and was convicted of it.

Article on Melissa Roland
Minutes of a Arkansas legislature discussion of a similar bill
YouTube video by Advocates for Pregnant Women w/ more examples from other states w/ similar laws

You mean to say not that it would make miscarriage manslaughter, but that it would make miscarriage with cause manslaughter.

Ah yes, perhaps "inducing a miscarriage" would have been a better phrasing.

Do you think an assault on a pregnant woman that causes her to miscarry should carry a stiffer penalty than another assault? That likely would be another consequence of this law, right?

I am still uncertain on that issue. I'd be more likely to agree w/ legislation about the issue if it only applied to after the third trimester or some other later date - I mean, something like 25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage before the sixth week, so why accuse someone of murder if there was a good chance there'd never be a viable infant?

If this measure were intended for the sole purpose of increasing penalties for assaults on pregnant women, I'd consider it a horrible way of doing so due to so many unintended consequences.

Here's another thought for you. If a woman miscarries, has an abortion for medical reasons, or has an abortion for personal reasons, what should happen to the remains of the embryo/fetus? Does the woman (and her family) have to right to bring the remains to an undertaker and bury/cremate them? Or is it medical waste? It's my understanding that many states treat it as medical waste and the woman isn't even allowed to do anything with it. But in the case of a miscarriage, there often aren't any remains at all.

I agree with you that this would not be a well designed law if its only purpose was to increase penalties for assaults inducing miscarriages. That's obviously not what the law is about. Neither is it about punishing women for sipping a glass of alcohol after becoming pregnant.

I think that regardless of peoples' opinions of when life begins, it's terrible if laws prevent people from coping with a premature loss in the way they want to.

Remember kids, it's not prejudice when you hate on everybody.

yeah. i felt strangely comforted just now, when i saw they're not just hating gays, but all unmarried folks. we're all in this together.

It gets me more pissed off. Married couples already have too many advantages.

Yep. They hate the gays so much they're willing to lump other groups in with them to oppress them. After all if you want kids but not marriage you still don't fit into their little box of acceptable to not hate.

If you look at this item alone, it seems it's okay to have your own children out of wedlock, it's just adopting that's bad. Maybe they should just outlaw adoptions, that'd be much simpler.

Or ban children. We can't let the wrong sorts raise them.

Interestingly, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes not only the right to "marry and found a family" (without mentioning adoption or not), but also the right to privacy! There's so many ways we could twist that document to our advantage.

Right now I'm all for outlawing marriage.

How about now? ;p

"Can you hear me now?" ;)

"what about now?"

Civil unions all around? Or nothing of the sort, it's all contract law to be individualized as one sees fit?

When I originally posted that comment my thought was "no civil unions whatsoever" - basically the state should have no stake whatsoever in the relationship between two individuals. However what prompted my comment to

marquiswildbill was a previous comment elsewhere that my opinion regrading marriage changes every ten minutes.

While writing this, I find myself disliking the idea of individualized contracts for multiple reasons. For example some of us may be unwilling or unable to hire a lawyer to draw up an indivdualized contract - doing away with a standard contract but allowing individualized ones means that low-income people will be entirely unable to get any of the benefits of marriage, and I would be very against such discrimination. I also like the idea of having some standard contract so that for most people quick decisions can be made in emergency situations, for example a hospital knowing who can make medical decisions for a patient if s/he is brought in already unconscious.