User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 162

  1. #11
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Well, I am against abortion (ideally) thus - I would consider a "forced" abortion as having murdered the baby.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Unless there is a separate law against forced abortion (which I don't think is anymore necessary than differentiating a law against texting while driving from reckless/careless driving), it's assault and battery, not to mention illegal use of a controlled substance, but it's not murder.

  3. #13
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü View Post
    Until there is a separate law for forced abortion (which I don't think is anymore necessary than differentiating a law against texting while driving from reckless/careless driving), it's assault and battery, not to mention illegal use of a controlled substance, but it's not murder.
    That would be NOW then.
    `Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

    `(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
    `(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

    `(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

    `(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

    `(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

    `(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
    The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. (see Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson). Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    "Forced abortion was denounced as a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials."

    Remember those, Nico?
    Every day.

  5. #15
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Yes.

  6. #16
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    As far as I can tell he is being charged for using an unauthorized drug on his girlfriend without her consent that could have resulted in serious illness and injury to her person, possibly death --hence the charges. There does not appear to be any specific charge levied for his succeeding in killing their unborn child (or attempting to). (If I'm wrong on the direction of the legal charges, feel free to clarify; but I couldn't find anything.)
    Bizarrely, I had to resort to the UK press for the details of the charges.
    The charges listed on court documents describe four instances from September 15 until October 25 when Woodward allegedly tried to induce an abortion.
    He is formally charged with 'the crime of attempted, willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder...a Felony,' the documents state, explicitly claiming that Woodward 'did unlawfully and with malice aforethought attempt to murder Baby Doe, a human fetus.'
    When asked why he was charged only with attempted murder rather than murder, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles District Attorney said 'We file charges based on the evidence. That is all we can say.'
    Criminal law attorneys interviewed by MailOnline suggested that in order to prove he did commit murder, the district attorney would have to prove the fetus was 'alive.' Since the fetus was not viable at 13 weeks, that might present a difficulty. Woodward's intent, they said, would be simpler to prove.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz29qjCEIHr
    What disturbs me is the idiocy of the kneejerk claim "abortion isn't murder" without considering the details of the case. Legalised abortion is NEVER about protecting the father's "rights".
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Bizarrely, I had to resort to the UK press for the details of the charges.

    What disturbs me is the idiocy of the kneejerk claim "abortion isn't murder" without considering the details of the case. Legalised abortion is NEVER about protecting the father's "rights".
    Interesting. So the charges were because of the fetus and not because of potential injury to the woman. The articles I read seriously failed to clarify. I also find it bizarre that legally they can press charges for attempted murder against a fetus, but the legal definition of a fetus prevents them from pressing charges for murder against a fetus. Why have a law that encompasses both if you can't enforce it entirely???

    I also think there should be charges for endangering that woman's life. He had no idea how her body would react physically to a drug (administered repeatedly orally and vaginally in varying doses in a short period of time) that he knew little about and she did not give consent. Why the hell no charges there?
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  8. #18
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    Why have a law that encompasses both if you can't enforce it entirely???
    Does seem like a significant oversight...
    I also think there should be charges for endangering that woman's life. He had no idea how her body would react physically to a drug (administered repeatedly orally and vaginally in varying doses in a short period of time) that he knew little about and she did not give consent. Why the hell no charges there?
    I doubt the drug would be FDA-approved if it were life-threatening (to a pregnant woman, that is).
    But yes, there must be a law similar to the one Rasofy cites that also applies in this case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Does seem like a significant oversight...
    I doubt the drug would be FDA-approved if it were life-threatening (to a pregnant woman, that is).
    But yes, there must be a law similar to the one Rasofy cites that also applies in this case.
    I have no doubt that the drug may be safe when administered in the appropriate dose by a professional based on your age, weight, and underlying medical conditions coupled with any temporary dietary restrictions. But when it's not administered under any of the above mitigating circumstances, even aspirin could be fatal... especially if your coffee was doped, your calzone was contaminated, and aspirin paste was inserted into intimate orifices and you have an aggravating medical condition. If it's not illegal to force (at least) prescription drugs into someone else's system, it sure as hell should be.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  10. #20
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Well, I am against abortion (ideally) thus - I would consider a "forced" abortion as having murdered the baby.
    Me too.

    It also seems like a crime to drug someone without their knowledge.

    On another note, I think it's kind of funny that the sex drive makes people not think much before they have sex. If this weren't the case, our species would have gone extinct LONG ago. lol

Similar Threads

  1. New drug promises to help peanut allergies
    By Tellenbach in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-06-2016, 01:47 AM
  2. [NT] Time to move out? Is it time to give up?
    By sowhatnow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2012, 01:38 PM
  3. Chemical Castration drug used to treat Autism
    By InsatiableCuriosity in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 07:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO