The Gaming Den

Utah Law wrote:281 (3) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following
282 circumstances:
- 10 -
283 (a) the unborn child is not viable; or
284 (b) the unborn child is viable, if:
285 (i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
286 (A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
287 (B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function
288 of the woman on whom the abortion is performed;
289 (ii) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the
290 patient’s medical record that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and uniformly
291 lethal; or
292 (iii) (A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
293 (I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402;
294 (II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1; or
295 (III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406(10) or Section 76-7-102; and
296 (B) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
297 (I) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (3)(b)(iii)(A) has been reported to
298 law enforcement; and
299 (II) complies with the requirements of Section 62A-4a-403.

In Utah it isn't even legal to get an abortion to get a do-over on Down's Syndrome or Hydrocephalism.

So you're damn right that there are people who are going to be hoping for a miscarriage. And investigating them for murder is exactly a definition of a bad law. The Mormons are wicked people. They do horrible things to women, and when they find out about the entirely predictable consequences of those horrible things, their response is to do more horrible things to more women.

I know this kind of thing is par for the course for Christian cults, but that doesn't make it less disgusting. Or less horrific when they are allowed to inflict their insanity on an entire state with nearly 3 million people in it.

-Username17

Frank on Utah law wrote: ...Some scary shit...

As they say on the Simpsons: Holy Flurcking Shnit! Ok, *now* I get why this law sucks so badly. I had no idea that the "access to abortion law" was so fucked up in Utah. I think we still agree that this law does not make miscarriage a crime, but given the general abortion law, I fully understand the outrage.

Carry on...

(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.

So it says that both (a) and (b) have to be met in order to avoid guilt for the criminal homicide of one's unborn child.

So ... What if (b) is true and (a) is false?

Oh, like prosecutors won't harass abortion providers to 'prove' wrongdoing.

-Crissa

In Utah it isn't even legal to get an abortion to get a do-over on Down's Syndrome

Thank goodness.

Frank wrote:In real life, an Abortion and a Miscarriage is the same thing.

I don't dispute that spontaneous abortion and miscarriage are the same thing. But I have never, ever, ever met a woman who miscarried and referred to it as an abortion. That usage of the term seems pretty much reserved for medical/scientific terminology.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage wrote:Wikipedia: Miscarriage[/url]]In medical contexts, the word "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced. Many women who have had miscarriages, however, object to the term "abortion" in connection with their experience, as it is generally associated with induced abortions. In recent years there has been discussion in the medical community about avoiding the use of this term in favor of the less ambiguous term "miscarriage".

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion wrote:Wikipedia: Abortion[/url]]The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.

So while what you are saying is technically accurate, in real life people don't use it that way.

PR, I liked it better when you left this place in a hissy-fit. Please consider doing so again, except don't come back.

Maj wrote:So while what you are saying is technically accurate, in real life people don't use it that way.

Yeah, people don't speak legalese in real life. They do tend to speak it in the "courts of law", however.

NineInchNall wrote:

(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.

So it says that both (a) and (b) have to be met in order to avoid guilt for the criminal homicide of one's unborn child.

So ... What if (b) is true and (a) is false?

Then they are guilty of criminal homicide. They are not guilty of criminal homicide if (a) and (b). Not (a) or (b).

Like Utah's incredibly fucked up Abortion laws, it's based on assumed illegality and with specific exceptions listed to make you not be breaking the law. So for example, Abortion has a legal allowance if the fetus' deformities are universally fatal. But if they are merely almost always fatal, and ghastly and tortuous in the remaining cases, such as Harlequin Icthyosis, then there's no exemption, and it's illegal.

So in Utah's new, even more fucked up law, it is now assumed that every termination of a pregnancy is the murder of a human being, unless it fits into a few categories that the legislators thought of while writing it up. And some of them are pretty fucking weird.

So you're not guilty of criminal homicide if you get medical advice and don't follow it. So apparently you can ask the doctor "Should I ram a coat hanger up my vagina and wiggle it around?" And then the doctor will say that "No, that's fucking terrible idea." and if you do it, you're supposedly in the clear because you're now simply going against a doctor's advice. This is a clause put in there to prevent people whose babies die after refusing C-sections from being prosecuted for murder (because that actually happened in Utah, because Mormons are heartless crazy shitheads).

But if you don't get medical advice about whatever it was you were doing that ended up increasing your miscarriage risk, then there's no exemption. And without a specific exemption, the default state is that they can prosecute you for criminal homicide.

---

Maj, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean seriously, that has no effect on the law at all. At all. Stop apologizing for your homies who are harassing and torturing young girls, it's disgusting.

-Username17

Frank wrote:Maj, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean seriously, that has no effect on the law at all. At all.

Your previous posts used the terms the same way when applicable to the law, but the people writing the law don't use the terms the same way you did.

Your post didn't actually disagree with me as far as I could tell - you seemed to say pretty what much I did.

Frank wrote:Stop apologizing for your homies who are harassing and torturing young girls, it's disgusting.

Would you please stop telling me what I believe? Where have I apologized for "my homies?" Or was my lack of outrage an admission that I think this law is just ducky in your eyes?

Your hatred and bigotry leads you to find any reason to mock, denigrate, and otherwise shit on anyone who claims a belief that you consider irrational. Dear fucking God in Hell... Get over it already. People who go to church - even if it's a specific one - don't have monolithic beliefs that are cookie cutter identical to each other.

Most of the stupid jabs and quips on these boards are ignorable because I don't fucking believe what they claim I do, but I can only read this shit for so long before I begin to toss out everything that a person says because it's so loaded with bigotted vitriol that the signal to noise ratio just isn't worth the time.

Knock it the fuck off, Frank. I don't agree with the abortion laws in Utah. But I don't think that the intention and execution of this law are as drastic as you claim they are. If time proves me wrong, then I'll be absolutely happy to admit to it.

Maj wrote:Your previous posts used the terms the same way when applicable to the law, but the people writing the law don't use the terms the same way you did.

No.

Stop lying. We have been over this exact statement three times now. Stop lying about it.

The State of Utah has a legal definition of Abortion. In all cases related to the state of Utah's laws, the legal definition is what counts for their terminology. Then there's an actual medical definition of Abortion. That's what counts when you're talking about what an actually sane abortion policy would look like. Your personal folk definition of Abortion, or the writeup of abortion in some online dictionary or another means precisely "fuck all."

And yeah Maj, you donate to these people. So their transgressions against human rights are something you support. Even if you "feel bad about it." Hell, especially if you feel bad about it, because then you know that you should stop.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:And yeah, Maj, you donate to these people. So their transgressions against human rights are something you support. Even if you "feel bad about it." Hell, especially if you feel bad about it, because then you know that you should stop.

This is something that confuses me to all fuck about my Catholic family. They know that Holy Mother Church is a sanctuary for fucked up child abusers, but that does not stop them from donating/tithing/filling the collection plate. To an organization that as official policy supports child rapists.

Well, it's more complicated than that. Basically they support both those terrible things and (hopefully) other good things. Of course, more good could be done by cutting out the middle man and donating straight to charities of your choice.

Edit:
Basically, if you don't like some of what a particular church stands for, it might be time to find one that's a better fit.

FrankTrollman wrote:

(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.

Like Utah's incredibly fucked up Abortion laws, it's based on assumed illegality

So in Utah's new, even more fucked up law, it is now assumed that every termination of a pregnancy is the murder of a human being, unless it fits into a few categories that the legislators thought of while writing it up. And some of them are pretty fucking weird.

Yes, there is the prospect that every miscarriage will spark an investigation, since it involves the death of an unborn child and lack of criminal negligence has to be established. Utah has a laws against fornication and sodomy that have never been prosecuted, at least in recent history. They also have a law against damaging library materials that require a mens rea test. For the same reason that there have been no fornication investigations and no drawn-out inquisitions resulting from the return of library books I imagine the witch-hunts you're invoking are phantoms. What makes you think that for some strange reason Utah will be investigating every miscarriage as a potential homicide? There's a reason "dismissal without trial" exists in criminal court.

Even assuming you're being reasonable, how do you write a law stating that a pregnant woman cannot intentionally self-perform an abortion?

Death of an unborn child caused by a criminally negligent act that's intentional, knowing, or reckless should cover it.

So you're not guilty of criminal homicide if you get medical advice and don't follow it. So apparently you can ask the doctor "Should I ram a coat hanger up my vagina and wiggle it around?" And then the doctor will say that "No, that's fucking terrible idea."

It's pretty clear that this self-performed procedure is both criminally negligent and intentional. You're proposing that the exemption in Section 3b for "not following medical advice" gives you carte blanche immunity?

mean_liar wrote:Even assuming you're being reasonable, how do you write a law stating that a pregnant woman cannot intentionally self-perform an abortion?

Easy. That's a law that shouldn't be written in the first place. If a woman is in a situation where a self-performed abortion seems like the most reasonable (or only plausible) course of action, then society has failed her. She should not be prosecuted.

mean_liar wrote:Yes, there is the prospect that every miscarriage will spark an investigation, since it involves the death of an unborn child and lack of criminal negligence has to be established. Utah has a laws against fornication and sodomy that have never been prosecuted, at least in recent history. They also have a law against damaging library materials that require a mens rea test. For the same reason that there have been no fornication investigations and no drawn-out inquisitions resulting from the return of library books I imagine the witch-hunts you're invoking are phantoms. What makes you think that for some strange reason Utah will be investigating every miscarriage as a potential homicide? There's a reason "dismissal without trial" exists in criminal court.

At best, that's a cop-out. At worst, it still leaves the possibility for political witch hunts.

Just because they can choose not to prosecute a law doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even okay, to have those laws on the books in the first place. You can leave this crap to the prosecutor's discretion, but why should you?

What VitM said. But it's pretty weird to claim that because very other laws that are weird and draconian aren't enforced that Utah won't enforce the letter of its newest installment of their crazy abortion law. After all, they already had a crazy abortion law, and they enforce it.

In fact, one of the given reasons for making the law change in the first place is to protect women from prosecution for murder upon failing to follow medical advice and subsequently losing a fetus. Not on the off-chance that such a ridiculous occurrence might happen, but because that totally did happen and it gave the state a black eye. A real woman was told that there was a real chance that she would really lose her fetus if they didn't do a C-Section, and she really refused the C-Section and then she really lost the fetus and then she reallygot prosecuted by the state of Utah for murder. Really. Her name is Melissa Rowland.

So no, I do not think that they will investigate the more than forty miscarriages that happen in Utah for every thousand women and girls between the ages of 15 and 50 every year, because they don't have the police resources for that. But I think it's a fairly safe bet that they will use this law capriciously and unfairly to harass women who have done nothing wrong, because that's what they already do with their abortion law.

-Username17

NineInchNall wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:And yeah, Maj, you donate to these people. So their transgressions against human rights are something you support. Even if you "feel bad about it." Hell, especially if you feel bad about it, because then you know that you should stop.

This is something that confuses me to all fuck about my Catholic family. They know that Holy Mother Church is a sanctuary for fucked up child abusers, but that does not stop them from donating/tithing/filling the collection plate. To an organization that as official policy supports child rapists.

Yeah, any institution that would celebrate a 13 year old girl with her 21 year old husband giving birth is insane!

OH sorry if you were being serious, I just thought it was another in the series of make fun of religions.

I also stand with George Carlin...If god can create the universe and world and all things in 7 days...why the hell does he need money? The aforementioned girl child and her husband were the parents of His son, and as I recall he had little to no money, so why is it again that the head of the Christian faith has his own city?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc

RobbyPants wrote:At best, that's a cop-out. At worst, it still leaves the possibility for political witch hunts.

Just because they can choose not to prosecute a law doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even okay, to have those laws on the books in the first place. You can leave this crap to the prosecutor's discretion, but why should you?

Case in point. There are laws on the books in several states that require a profession of faith for public office. These laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable, but they're a terrible thing to keep around.

Rep. Trent Franks: Abortion A Greater Moral Wrong Then Slavery

Choice quote:

FRANKS: In this country, we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say "How brave were they? What was the matter with them? You know, I can't believe, you know, four million slaves. This is incredible." And we're right, we're right. We should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America's soul. And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery. And I think, What does it take to get us to wake up?

So basically Representative Frank is saying that the systemic killing and pillaging of black women, separation and tearing apart of the black family, loss of culture and identity, being treated like subhumans, and having to deal with inadequate housing, inadequate schools, lynchings and other forms of Jim Crow after being "freed" were better outcomes then giving women control over their reproductive systems?

Keep it classy, Republicans.

Gathering condemned after Obama doesn't show up at it.

-Crissa

Crissa, can you give a link that at the minimum states that Obama doesn't show up? This seems to be an article about a forthcoming event and I don't want to be searching around the internet about a meeting that isn't namd or dated.

Since I should actually add to the thread, concerning abortion and family planning is an eight year old event which came out this year: Military spying on Planned Parenthood members.

Now, I can't quite tell whether they were illegally spying on just the members who were also members of a white supremacist movement or both Planned Parenthood and the white supremacist group.

But either way it makes no sense: isn't the FBI supposed to illegally spy on their own citizens and the military and CIA illegally spy on other countries?

Oh, wait, another link here says that they were working with the FBI. Thats fine then.

Frank wrote:And yeah Maj, you donate to these people.

Um. No, I don't. And I've said so before.

shadzar wrote:I also stand with George Carlin...If god can create the universe and world and all things in 7 days...why the hell does he need money?

And this is a large portion of why I don't. Tithing is a sacrament (?? - tenet, pillar, I don't know the right word) of obedience, not charity. I'm not OK with that.

Parthenon wrote:Crissa, can you give a link that at the minimum states that Obama doesn't show up?

According to this article in Newsweek {OK, SCFA, Synopsis}, the roll call included:

Tina Tchen, Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Paul Monteiro, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Bryan Samuels, Commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services; Mazen Basrawi, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice; and Bill Carr, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel.

So it does seem that Obama was not, in fact, there.

It's sad that there were more links griping about the upcoming event than there were reports of the event.

chilean earthquake may have shortened earth day by microsecond

I didn't even know something like this was possible. Although they say "may", so I don't know what they're basing this on.

I've heard of the earth's day being shortened by microseconds before, but I always wonder "And?". Doesn't the day change by microseconds anyway throughout the year or something?