msnbc.com: Proposed Georgia law: Women would get death penalty if they miscarry

[Toe Jam]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41889946#41889946
.

UPDATE: Video and title from MSNBC are misleading.

Upon further review, Republicans are slightly less evil than originally thought. :silly:

[Duckus]

Is it just me, or are there an abnormally nigh number of high-profile abortion bills this year? ND, TX, GA, UT all come to mind.

[Toe Jam]

Is it just me, or are there an abnormally nigh number of high-profile abortion bills this year? ND, TX, GA, UT all come to mind.

Republicans will probably try to implement a Crusade-like policy before long.

[Larry]

Is it just me, or are there an abnormally nigh number of high-profile abortion bills this year? ND, TX, GA, UT all come to mind.

Jockeying for the next election. Motivating the base.

Oh, and I'll observe that we've seen claims like this made about other bills that, while certainly extreme, weren't as extreme as portrayed. (Remember "law will legalize people to kill abortion doctors"?)


Republicans will probably try to implement a Crusade-like policy before long.

According to some, we've already done that.

[twa]

Is it just me, or are there an abnormally nigh number of high-profile abortion bills this year? ND, TX, GA, UT all come to mind.

Probably just you...there are always many proposed

How about a link to the bill itself instead of talking heads?

[zoony]

Interesting, I've always felt this was a valid argument in favor of abortion rights

[jnhay]

Was that the best expert they could find? Seems like she didn't know anything.

[Toe Jam]

Probably just you...there are always many proposed

How about a link to the bill itself instead of talking heads?

Sure.

Go ahead find a way to defend this trash.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=31965

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated so as to provide that prenatal murder shall be unlawful in all events and to remove numerous references to such procedures; to amend Title 16, relating to crimes and offenses, so as to make certain findings of fact; to define certain terms; to provide that any prenatal murder shall be unlawful; to provide a penalty; to repeal certain exceptions to certain offenses; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

[twa]

Interesting, I've always felt this was a valid argument in favor of abortion rights

Why?....there is the presumption of innocence and a substantial burden of proof in murder cases.

[RansomthePasserby]

Honestly, what the heck.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I didn't watch the video, but read the explanation of the bill... I don't think a woman who miscarries has anything to worry about even under the bill.

[twa]

Sure.

Go ahead find a way to defend this trash.



Defend personhood for a fetus?...sure,glad too

The assertion Georgia can define away Roe is another matter,though granting persohood certainly changes Roe v Wade

You want to defend the assertion a miscarriage can result in the death penalty?....So can walking down the street,but that is rather a stretch w/o you committing violence against another person.

[December90]

Seems like we have another strong candidate for http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?319353-Overt-and-conscious-media-distortion-perpetrated-by-the-liberal-media

The proposed bill does not criminalize miscarriage. It is very strong pro-life/anti-abortion bill that essentially tries to address non-standard abortions (intentionally harming the unborn baby)

Nice to see MSNBC living up to their well earned reputation as the Trash-heap Faux News of the Left.

[jnhay]

Seems like we have another strong candidate for http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?319353-Overt-and-conscious-media-distortion-perpetrated-by-the-liberal-media

The proposed bill does not criminalize miscarriage. It is very strong pro-life/anti-abortion bill that essentially tries to address non-standard abortions (intentionally harming the unborn baby)

Nice to see MSNBC living up to their well earned reputation as the Trash-heap Faux News of the Left.
It would have been nice if they had gotten an actual expert rather than someone who provides no evidence that she's done any research.

A headline like "Death penalty for miscarriages" has to be questioned. It's so crazy that absolutely no insight was given with the report. They say it's punishment for "a common and natural process" but that's obviously not true according to what you're saying.

[Zguy28]

It specifically says murder. A miscarriage is not intentional and cannot be murder.

[adam@section118]

It specifically says murder. A miscarriage is not intentional and cannot be murder.

I blame it all on Fox News....sorry Faux News


:pfft:

[Popeman38]

Sure.

Go ahead find a way to defend this trash.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=31965

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated so as to provide that prenatal murder shall be unlawful in all events and to remove numerous references to such procedures; to amend Title 16, relating to crimes and offenses, so as to make certain findings of fact; to define certain terms; to provide that any prenatal murder shall be unlawful; to provide a penalty; to repeal certain exceptions to certain offenses; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.The actual punitive portion (reading is your friend):

(2) 'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an
115 intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however,
116 that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother
117 and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.
118 Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically
119 as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human
120 involvement whatsoever in the causation of such eventIn other words, this thread title is complete horse ****. If MSNBC titled the article that way, this belongs in the overt and conscious media distortion thread. This is a run of the mill, state ant-abortion bill. It labels abortion as murder.

Seriously people, read stuff, don't just swallow headlines hook, line and sinker....

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The actual punitive portion (reading is your friend):In other words, this thread title is complete horse ****. If MSNBC titled the article that way, this belongs in the overt and conscious media distortion thread. This is a run of the mill, state ant-abortion bill. It labels abortion as murder.

Seriously people, read stuff, don't just swallow headlines hook, line and sinker....

Sounds right to me. Its a stupid bill, but the title of the article is even stupider. :)

[Popeman38]

Sounds right to me. Its a stupid bill, but the title of the article is even stupider. :)They did label the top right of the video with:
Proposed law: Women get death if they miscarry :doh::doh::doh::doh:

[WALL-LE]

sweet caption toe jam
ur attempt at making republicans look barbaric failed miserably u just sound like a douche

[Madison Redskin]

As others have noted, the title of the article and the video are incredibly misleading. In fact, they're simply wrong. BS is BS, no matter who is spewing it.

[thebluefood]

Wow, nice accurate title there, man.

[Toe Jam]

Wow, nice accurate title there, man.

Wow, good job clicking the link and realizing that's what MSNBC had above the video. I didn't make up the thread title.

[Predicto]

Wow. That title is horrible. We actually have a real, life example of liberal media deception here.

20 more of them and we will equal a single day of Fox News. :movefast:

[Toe Jam]

Wow. That title is horrible. We actually have a real, life example of liberal media deception here.

20 more of them and we will equal a single day of Fox News. :movefast:

:silly:

[Popeman38]

Wow. That title is horrible. We actually have a real, life example of liberal media deception here.

20 more of them and we will equal a single day of Fox News. :movefast:Hey, this isn't the Overt and Conscious Media Distortion thread.:silly:

[RansomthePasserby]

Ahhh, MSNBC.

[zoony]

It specifically says murder. A miscarriage is not intentional and cannot be murder.

you'd want to treat it as a crime scene of course. You cannot say it is intentional until after you send in the detectives to investigate.

If you believe life starts at conception that is, and can be your only position.

.....

[grantarchy]

This is on Fox news as well:

Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages


The legislation from Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican, would make all abortions, described as "prenatal murder," illegal based on the belief that all life begins at conception. The bill's definition of "prenatal murder" excludes miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever" in causing them. Anyone convicted would face the death penalty or life behind bars.

Franklin's legislation does not clarify what defines human involvement or how this would be enforced.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/#ixzz1FZy8J3An

[twa]

you'd want to treat it as a crime scene of course. You cannot say it is intentional until after you send in the detectives to investigate.

If you believe life starts at conception that is, and can be your only position.

.....

There is never a only position :)

It is not a embryo/fetus for 9 days or so after the egg is fertilized right?...

added
I like this nugget from the Fox link

Franklin has introduced the bill each session since 2002 but it has never made it out of committee, his office said, adding that it likely never will.

But Franklin's legislation still prompted outrage among women's advocates.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/#ixzz1Fa7tmDGM

[techboy]

This just in... MSNBC is the Fox News of the Left.

It actually is Fox's fault, though, because they validated the business model.


you'd want to treat it as a crime scene of course. You cannot say it is intentional until after you send in the detectives to investigate.

Allow me to channel my inner zoony, here... ;)

This is the stupidest "argument" I've heard regarding abortion since I've been on this board, and it's been trotted out before.

Do detectives show up at every accidental or natural causes death and engage in a full investigation now?

No?

Then why would making abortion illegal make things any different?

Morover, abortion was illegal in this country until Roe v. Wade in the 70's.

Was every miscarriage investigated by Briscoe and Curtis, complete with wisecracks?

No?

Then why would making abortion illegal again make things any different? My mother had several miscarriages before I was born in 1973, and abortion was illegal. I don't recall mom talking about her time down at the station. :rolleyes:

If this is a realistic concern, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing several actual cases from pre-1973 where women were treated in this manner. I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting, though.

Sell stupid somewhere else.

Hmmm... I feel kind of icky now. I'm sorry if I offended you. :)

Crap, I suck at this... :ols:

Summary: Even if alternate methods of abortion, like getting sloppy drunk intentionally, are made illegal at the same time (and they should be), you won't have police investigations into miscarriages unless there's some significant cause to do so, just as is now the case with other deaths.

If a doctor is involved, he might have to fill out a form. That's about it, and realistically, it probably won't even be that.

It's likely a moot point, anyway. I find it far more likely that advances in medical technology will solve the abortion issue than it is that abortion will ever be illegal again.

[Predicto]

This just in... MSNBC is the Fox News of the Left.



Except it appears that Fox News just said the exact same thing.

Maybe this wasn't liberal media bias at all, but only a "believing some idiot who overstates a bill's potential impact" error. Something that can happy to any media.

[Larry]

If this is a realistic concern, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing several actual cases from pre-1973 where women were treated in this manner. I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting, though.

Just observing, prior to 1973, a major political party hadn't been running around the country, redefining eveyr law they could find in an attempt to capture the title of "Toughest penalty for anything involving a fetus in the nation".

In fact, my ethics class (pause for groans from the audience) just read the actual decision in Roe, and at least according to the USSC, prior to 73, no state had ever tried to claim that the fetus was a person. Rather, abortions were illegal in Texas (and many other states) because the states claimed that abortions were too risky for the mother.


Sell stupid somewhere else.

And give up this prime retail location? :)

[techboy]

Except it appears that Fox News just said the exact same thing.

Well, of course... they're the Fox News of the right... ;)



Maybe this wasn't liberal media bias at all, but only a "believing some idiot who overstates a bill's potential impact" error.

Maybe, but after watching MSNBC a bit during the elections, when the anchors might as well have been wearing Obama campaign buttons, I'm not as inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.


Just observing, prior to 1973, a major political party hadn't been running around the country, redefining eveyr law they could find in an attempt to capture the title of "Toughest penalty for anything involving a fetus in the nation".

When it actually happens, let me know. Frankly, we can leave aside ethics (please, Larry :silly:).

There's no way the police would have that kind of funding.



In fact, my ethics class (pause for groans from the audience) just read the actual decision in Roe, and at least according to the USSC, prior to 73, no state had ever tried to claim that the fetus was a person. Rather, abortions were illegal in Texas (and many other states) because the states claimed that abortions were too risky for the mother.

I just read that too, actually.

What I found even more surprising is that there are several places in U.S. and British common law which defined life as beginning "when the child stirs in the womb".



And give up this prime retail location? :)

Good response. I wish I had thought of it when zoony used the line on me. :)

[Larry]

I just read that too, actually.

What I found even more surprising is that there are several places in U.S. and British common law which defined life as beginning "when the child stirs in the womb".

I read something similar in the last few days, myself. I don't think it was in Roe, but it might have been.

I recall it mentioning that even back as far as Aristotle, he'd argued that the "ensoulment", I think was the term, occurred at "quickening". (The time when the mother first feels the fetus move.)

I was surprised. I had been hearing (and repeating) that out society had always used the moment of birth as the official moment of "personhood". But apparently, that's not the case, and there's been debate over it for a long time.

[twa]

How long has the term 'with child' or it's equivalent been used?

From my understanding there has never been much disputing of the fact it is a life in man's history.....whether it has a soul or spiritual aspects yes

[zoony]

Then why would making abortion illegal again make things any different? My mother had several miscarriages before I was born in 1973, and abortion was illegal. I don't recall mom talking about her time down at the station. :rolleyes:

If this is a realistic concern, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing several actual cases from pre-1973 where women were treated in this manner. I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting, though.

.


Allow me to channel my inner-techboy in my response. Actually, scratch that, I don't have all day and I couldn't really pull off a convincing know it all windbag. So I'll skip that. :)

I'll just focus on what's what here. Only a ****ing moron would derive what you did from my post. :silly: Though I get your reaction, as I certainly found the target.

The argument is not about case law. The argument is simple. I'll type slow so ****ing morons could follow :ols:

If you believe life begins at conception, you should also believe that a miscarriage is a potential crime scene. Period. End of debate. If it is found that the women miscarried thru her own negligence, the case for manslaughter should be brought. Or if a result of drugs or smoking, murder charges.


Do detectives show up at every accidental or natural causes death and engage in a full investigation now?



You're comparing the death of an elderly person/etc. with the death of a newborn? Now who is acting like the ****ing moron? :ols:

Nevermind your wording... "do detectives show up at NATURAL causes of death" :doh:. No genius, they need to determine if it is natural or not first. If a medical examiner detects foul play then yes, investigators are brought in. How dow they know it's natural before they know it's natural? :dunce:

If a baby dies, you can dam sure believe there are questions asked of the parents and/or medical examiner. If the babie's death is due to the parents' negligence, parents are held accountable.

So let me repeat. You believe it's a life, same rules apply outside the vagina as they do inside. So STFU and leave the thinking to the pros.


Now, read the above and take note. That's how you channel your zoony. *****. :)


(the above is tongue in cheek, but point remains. zoony, out!)

[Bang]

Alarm alarm!
I bet this is one of those things they throw in to use as a bargaining chip during debate because they know no one will ever go for it.
But, as good an excuse as any to scare the hell out of every expectant mom.
It's a war on pregnancy!

~Bangin' with a rubber from now on

[twa]

Now wait a dang minute...if you die from me smoking it's your own damn fault for being there

[Larry]

How long has the term 'with child' or it's equivalent been used?

From my understanding there has never been much disputing of the fact it is a life in man's history.....whether it has a soul or spiritual aspects yes

Oh, I don't think anybody has ever disputed that it's alive. Only whether it's a person.

And that's part of the problem. "Person" is something that's really tough to exactly define. For example, some of the ethics papers I've read have argued that the ability to reason is one of the things that makes a "person" (as opposed to, say, an animal.) Same with the ability to use complex language.

(I observed that, speaking as someone who is the sole caregiver of someone with Alzheimer's, dementia, and depression which for a while had reduced her to the point of not speaking, and who even after quite a bit of improvement, still probably only manages to complete one sentence every other day or so, that I rejected the author's assertion that someone who cannot engage in higher reasoning, or effective language usage, was not a person, and therefore had no right to live.)

(Although some counter-arguments have occurred to me, as well: Is Mr. Spock a "person"? Please list the characteristics that make him a "person". Now, how many of those characteristics does a fetus (or a baby) possess?)

[Destino]

118 Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically
119 as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human
120 involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event

The actual punitive portion (reading is your friend):In other words, this thread title is complete horse ****. If MSNBC titled the article that way, this belongs in the overt and conscious media distortion thread. This is a run of the mill, state ant-abortion bill. It labels abortion as murder.

Seriously people, read stuff, don't just swallow headlines hook, line and sinker....
Completely serious question, how does one establish "naturally occurring expulsion" without looking into it. Next question, would "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" include poor diet, stress, risky activities that could lead to a fall (or similar accident)? What if a pregnant woman gets into a car accident and it is her fault and as a result suffers a miscarriage?

I'm just looking at the language you posted and asking what I feel are obvious questions. With the way government lawyers apply laws in this country I don't think this is unreasonable.

[techboy]

Allow me to channel my inner-techboy in my response. Actually, scratch that, I don't have all day and I couldn't really pull off a convincing know it all windbag.


Don't sell yourself short here, zoony.

I generally find you very convincing. :silly:

[Destino]

Do detectives show up at every accidental or natural causes death and engage in a full investigation now?
I'm sorry but WHAT?!

1 - If someone dies in an "accident" you bet your ass the police have to be called and will come investigate. They make the determination on if it's an accident or not.

2 - The last two relatives of mine that died did so in their homes of natural causes. In both instances police officers that came by inspected the scene and asked a few questions before calling the coroners office (another agent of the state I might add). They again, don't just take your word for it, and make their own determination.





Morover, abortion was illegal in this country until Roe v. Wade in the 70's.

Was every miscarriage investigated by Briscoe and Curtis, complete with wisecracks?

No?

Then why would making abortion illegal again make things any different? My mother had several miscarriages before I was born in 1973, and abortion was illegal. I don't recall mom talking about her time down at the station. :rolleyes:
Did we have laws on the books in the 1970s that added murder charges for the loss of an unborn child like we do today? Also as I missed the 70s I don't know what medical science knew about the causes of miscarriage or the state of prenatal care at the time.

[twa]

Did we have laws on the books in the 1970s that added murder charges for the loss of an unborn child like we do today? Also as I missed the 70s I don't know what medical science knew about the causes of miscarriage or the state of prenatal care at the time.

Cali did I know

---------- Post added March-3rd-2011 at 08:36 PM ----------



I was surprised. I had been hearing (and repeating) that out society had always used the moment of birth as the official moment of "personhood". But apparently, that's not the case, and there's been debate over it for a long time.

You might find this interesting
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nSAiuDUyV80J:www.uffl.org/vol%25209/dyer9.pdf+Dr.+Horatio+R.+Storer,+chairman+of+the+A merican+Medical+Association%27s+Committee+on+Crimi nal+Abortion,+said,+%22Physicians+have+now+arrived +at+the+unanim&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShj7KpF0Z8oJ-KTocyP0bPUIq42jvt3iEclbL00Dp4LEOhQ_JMHKjUBreexNiib 6PCLxJp04uuxP0l96zlZqL_-tqaeMzMys3NEl4h4cfC1yJa7cx2EfReVT-PoCVlGfFmcb_7F&sig=AHIEtbSIGcQm3KUshOVXOZVaX_HR7M0Ssw

[techboy]

I'm sorry but WHAT?!


Perhaps I did get a bit carried away, yes. That's what happens when you channel your inner zoony. ;)

My point is simply that if someone, say, dies of a heart attack en route to the hospital, "detectives" (zoony's word) do not show up and start interrogating everyone in sight unless they are given reason to do so. A regular level police officer might look around for a minute and fill out a form, but that's about it.

I doubt even that would actually happen in the case of a miscarriage, but zoony presented this as an argument against making abortion illegal, and really, the image this argument wants us to have is the grieving mother under klieg lights while the detectives barrage her with questions. Unless there's some specific reason to suspect something, that's simply not going to happen.

And, in point of fact, it wouldn't even be that much. The police don't have the time or budget to try to track this kind of thing (again, even if it was illegal, and unless there was some reason to pay attention, like a report from a health care provider).


Did we have laws on the books in the 1970s that added murder charges for the loss of an unborn child like we do today?

You act like the law is internally consistent, or ever will be.

It's obviously not, since as you say, Scott Peterson can be charged for two counts of murder, but Lacie could have had an abortion without consequence.

[grantarchy]

EDIT - never mind.

[chipwhich]

Perhaps I did get a bit carried away, yes. That's what happens when you channel your inner zoony. ;)

My point is simply that if someone, say, dies of a heart attack en route to the hospital, "detectives" (zoony's word) do not show up and start interrogating everyone in sight unless they are given reason to do so. A regular level police officer might look around for a minute and fill out a form, but that's about it.


When my mother in law died of a heart attack within the last two years, you betcha they looked around and asked questions. They wanted to see a list of all her medications, documented what they could, put all the bottles of prescriptions on a table, and made a report.

It was more than one police officer, and more than a simple report. They didn't drag anyone down for questioning, but it wasn't taken lightly.