ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Alabama incidents

Reply
Old 27th June 2019, 12:36 AM   #1
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,692
Think the antiabortion laws have gone too far? They have.

MSN (and multiple other news sources):Alabama woman is charged with the manslaughter of her own unborn baby after she started a fight that led to her being shot and the fetus dying
Quote:
Alabama authorities indicted a woman whose unborn baby died when she was shot because they allege that the shooting resulted in a fight with another woman over the child’s father that she started.
Marshae Jones, 27, of Birmingham, was charged with manslaughter by a Jefferson County grand jury on Wednesday. ...

Investigators later learned that the shooting took place as a result of a dispute between Jones and Ebony Jemison, 23.

When authorities failed to secure an indictment against Jemison, they decided to seek charges against Jones....

‘She [the baby] had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection.’

Jones will be remanded to Jefferson County Jail, where she will be held on $50,000 bond.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:24 AM   #2
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,033
How far along was the pregnancy? Still withing abortion limits, or 8 months?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:25 AM   #3
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
How far along was the pregnancy? Still withing abortion limits, or 8 months?
1. 5 Months
2. How on Earth does that matter?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 06:13 AM   #4
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,086
When you have to worry that women might use guns as the means of abortion, lawmakers should reconsider their approach to the subject.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:04 AM   #5
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,033
SG, find a better example of the point you want to make. Anti-abortion laws are not the culprit. Killing a fetus via accident or violence has always been a crime.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:06 AM   #6
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
SG, find a better example of the point you want to make. Anti-abortion laws are not the culprit. Killing a fetus via accident or violence has always been a crime.
Have you... read the article?

The mother, the one charged, didn't kill the fetus via accident or violence.

The person who shot the pregnant woman was not charged.

The woman who was shot and miscarried was charged.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:09 AM   #7
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
SG, find a better example of the point you want to make. Anti-abortion laws are not the culprit. Killing a fetus via accident or violence has always been a crime.
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
When you have to worry that women might use guns as the means of abortion, lawmakers should reconsider their approach to the subject.
Wait... are you two somehow thinking this woman shot herself?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:11 AM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,386
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Have you... read the article?

The mother, the one charged, didn't kill the fetus via accident or violence.

The person who shot the pregnant woman was not charged.

The woman who was shot and miscarried was charged.
Suppose you and a friend decide to hold up a liquor store. The owner is armed, and shoots and kills your friend in self defense. You are on the hook for murder, not the owner.

Seems like the same deal here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:17 AM   #9
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
"Getting shot while in a fight" is not the same thing, in any way, as your liquor store hypothetical.

But yeah I can't believe I have to do this again: *Pulls out the "Holy Crap There's Actually People Defending This" Book, makes a check mark, puts the book away*
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:17 AM   #10
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milky Way, Sol, Earth, Northern Hemisphere, USA, AZ, Scottsdale
Posts: 4,188
Forget it, Jake, it's Alabama.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:21 AM   #11
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Wait... are you two somehow thinking this woman shot herself?
The charge is based on a case where a women did exactly that.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:24 AM   #12
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The charge is based on a case where a women did exactly that.
"Based on a case"... what?

Someone else shot this woman and killed the fetus. What are you on about?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:28 AM   #13
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,049
I'm surprised they didn't also charge her with theft for taking the other woman's bullet.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:31 AM   #14
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
1. 5 Months

2. How on Earth does that matter?
Our collective sense of when a fetus starts to get so human that you can't dispose of it without considering its human rights? That matters a lot in cases like this.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:33 AM   #15
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Our collective sense of when a fetus starts to get so human that you can't dispose of it without considering its human rights? That matters a lot in cases like this.
Great. What the hell does that have to do with charging a woman because SOMEONE ELSE shot her and killed her fetus?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:34 AM   #16
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Based on a case"... what?

Someone else shot this woman and killed the fetus. What are you on about?
But authorities consider her at fault for the shooting happening in the first place. Ziggurat probably has it right.
I know it is messed up, but there have been a number of cases of pregnant women attempting suicide who have been charged with (attempted) murder of their fetus.
Because desperate women can think clearly about legal consequences.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:36 AM   #17
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Really? We're actually gonna have to have a "Pregnant women have a duty to not get shot" argument? Really? Effing really?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:49 AM   #18
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,715
I'm with Joe. This is absolutely insane.

These lawmakers think of us as mere quasi-sentient incubators, and it's just a plain obvious fact. We're supposed to exhibit just enough sentience to protect a fetus at all costs, but absolutely nothing else. You want to get into an argument with another woman, well, you're the guardian of this fetus now. You should have known it could escalate into violence. You didn't protect your sacred artifact, and now the state is coming down on you. You should do nothing but sit around eating healthy and cooing with joy at your growing belly for at least the 2nd and 3rd trimester. God, it's disgusting.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:52 AM   #19
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,721
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Have you... read the article?

The mother, the one charged, didn't kill the fetus via accident or violence.
True, the mother didn't kill the fetus herself.

But, according to the article, she started the fight, and attempted to continue it when the other woman did not. I wasn't there, but perhaps it was felt that the shooter was engaged in a certain amount of self-defense.

And there is the concept of 'felony crimes', where all participants in a crime get convicted regardless of their role. (For example, the getaway driver in a bank robbery gets charged for felony murder or any killings committed by the robbers in the bank, even if they stayed in the car and didn't actually go into the bank.) In this case, the pregnant woman starting the fight was considered a crime, and she was responsible for all outcomes due to her participation.

In any case, I think casebro was right... I'm not sure if this case really has much to do with anti-abortion laws, as it does the general application of certain legal concepts.
Quote:
The person who shot the pregnant woman was not charged.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the shooter was charged, but the charges were dropped after investigating the incident. (I could be wrong about that...)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:53 AM   #20
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Have you... read the article?

The mother, the one charged, didn't kill the fetus via accident or violence.
Apparently this is not true.

Quote:
The person who shot the pregnant woman was not charged.
The article omits any details that would help us assess this point.

However, our law - and I think our morality - provides that people who fight back against an aggressor may not be guilty of any crime. Not even the crime of murder, if their fighting back results in the death of the aggressor.

Perhaps that's what happened in this case. The article doesn't say, so appealing to "read the article" probably doesn't help your argument.

Quote:
The woman who was shot and miscarried was charged.
The article doesn't say, but it seems like this might be an application of the principle of felony murder. Our laws provide for charging an aggressor for harm arising from their aggression, even if the agent of that harm was someone else. A security guard shoots a bank robber in self defense, putting a murder charge on the robber's partner.

So charging the woman with an illegally-induced miscarriage, for a miscarriage that resulted from violence that she herself initiated, doesn't seem out of line to me. Not in principle, at least. The article doesn't provide enough detail to know whether that's a reasonable result in this case.

Because the article lacks detail, we should probably reserve judgement. But in the meantime we can reason from certain principles. For example, if you don't agree with the principle of felony murder, then this case will probably never be acceptable to you. Whatever the details that emerge, putting the mom on the hook for the miscarriage resulting from her violence will never seem to you a good moral outcome.

On the other hand, if you do agree with the principle of felony murder, then you're probably at least open to the idea of felony miscarriage as being governed by the same principle. And then you can examine the details of this case, and judge whether the charges against the woman are consistent with this principle.

Unfortunately, we have no details, and so it's premature to pass judgement on the charges.

You can also reason from the principle of illegally-induced miscarriages. If you don't agree that people should be generally prohibited from inducing miscarriages on their own authority, then you will never agree that this woman may have a case to answer, whether she induced the miscarriage during the commission of a felony, or by any other means.

On the other hand, if you agree that in some cases people should be prohibited from inducing miscarriages on their own say-so, then you're probably open to the idea that this woman may have a case to answer here.

If she had self-induced a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester by other means, would you consider that a crime she should be held accountable for? I ask this independently of what the actual laws about intentional miscarriage are, in Alabama. My question is whether or not you think it *should* be a crime. Put it another way: If the question came up for a vote in your jurisdiction, would you vote for or against criminalizing intentional miscarriages?

These questions of principles and how we might apply them are about all we can reasonably discuss right now, since we don't have enough detail to really get into the specifics of this case. It may be that in a week we'll have information that completely changes our understanding of what happened and why she's been charged. However, in the meantime discussing the principles will probably prepare us better to judge this case as more details emerge.

What do you think?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:58 AM   #21
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
No. No we're not doing this. We're not doing the whole sea-lioning "I just want to have a civil discussion with you..." thing.

When a pregnant woman gets shot, you don't arrest her for losing the baby. I'm not going to go 40 pages of insane hypotheticals and maybes and what ifs and trolley problems.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 27th June 2019 at 08:00 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:00 AM   #22
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,386
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Getting shot while in a fight" is not the same thing, in any way, as your liquor store hypothetical.

But yeah I can't believe I have to do this again: *Pulls out the "Holy Crap There's Actually People Defending This" Book, makes a check mark, puts the book away*
There are several possible avenues to object to the charge here. One, you could consider her the innocent party in the fight. But that isn't being argued. Two, you could object to the concept of felony murder, which is what the liquor store example is. But that isn't being argued either. Three, you could object to any charge of murder for killing a fetus under any circumstances. But that isn't being argued either, since the fact that it's the mother seems to be Central to the objection. If you object to murder for a fetus under any situation, that includes if someone went up to a random pregnant woman and shot her in the abdomen, killing the fetus but not the mother. Is that your position? If so, you don't need this case to argue it.

But if those three things stand, if she is the guilty party in the fight, if you accept felony murder as a legal concept, if killing a fetus can be murder, well, this result can follow pretty directly. I don't see a real way out that doesn't involve special pleading.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:01 AM   #23
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,715
If we're at the point where there's a law against pregnant women starting fights because she should have known it would escalate and result in her being shot, then I really am moving to the wilderness and giving up on society. Pregnant women are often hormonal, extra emotional - do I need to explain this? For ****'s sake. How many people in the thread have been pregnant? I'm sure at least a few, or some will come in. It doesn't give you psychic powers, and it can interfere with your emotions and judgment (not that she could have known how this would turn out even with unaffected judgment).

I don't understand how the charges could have been dropped against the other woman. This story is full of holes and doesn't make sense. But that doesn't matter, because people have become so desensitized to the fact that pregnant women are actual people and not just Super Secret Service for The Fetus in Chief, that many find this report basically normal and not something to panic over. That is disturbing. This is the reason I am starting to go a bit loony and be afraid of the world. Look at what is happening.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:02 AM   #24
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
If we're at the point where there's a law against pregnant women starting fights because she should have known it would escalate and result in her being shot, then I really am moving to the wilderness and giving up on society. Pregnant women are often hormonal, extra emotional - do I need to explain this? For ****'s sake. How many people in the thread have been pregnant? I'm sure at least a few, or some will come in. It doesn't give you psychic powers, and it can interfere with your emotions and judgment (not that she could have known how this would turn out even with unaffected judgment).

I don't understand how the charges could have been dropped against the other woman. This story is full of holes and doesn't make sense. But that doesn't matter, because people have become so desensitized to the fact that pregnant women are actual people and not just Super Secret Service for The Fetus in Chief, that many find this report basically normal and not something to panic over. That is disturbing. This is the reason I am starting to go a bit loony and be afraid of the world. Look at what is happening.
Listen here you broodmare, you need to back away from your computer before the radiation from your monitor negatively effects your fetus. No I don't care that you aren't even pregnant right now!
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:03 AM   #25
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,715
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No. No we're not doing this. We're not doing the whole sea-lioning "I just want to have a civil discussion with you..." thing.

When a pregnant woman gets shot, you don't arrest her for losing the baby. I'm not going to go 40 pages of insane hypotheticals and maybes and what ifs and trolley problems.
Yes, this.


Personally, I guess I've said my piece and am going to bow out. This is not something I'm willing (or even able, really) to discuss. I scribble my graffiti passionately on the wall, and then I bail.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:05 AM   #26
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,715
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Listen here you broodmare, you need to back away from your computer before the radiation from your monitor negatively effects your fetus. No I don't care that you aren't even pregnant right now!
Right, I might damage an egg. Or its home! Those are precious to God and the Republican Party and everyone who isn't a witch!
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:10 AM   #27
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,386
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No. No we're not doing this. We're not doing the whole sea-lioning "I just want to have a civil discussion with you..." thing.
Having discussions is the entire purpose of this board. If you don't want to discuss the topic of a thread, don't participate in that thread. Unlike the actual sea lion comic, we won't follow you if you leave. We won't intrude upon the rest of your daily life. That's what makes the sea lion annoying, not the fact that it has disagreeable opinions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:10 AM   #28
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,008
This charge against the pregnant woman is not a result of any recently passed anti-abortion law.

Reading between the lines, what appears to have happened is that the pregnant woman physically attacked another woman. The second woman drew a gun and shot the pregnant woman, killing the fetus. Now, to my way of thinking, pulling a gun and shooting somebody is a pretty extreme reaction, but apparently a grand jury thought it was justified. I'm pretty skeptical, but I don't have any information about it, and I'm not really keen on the American culture of wandering about armed and shooting someone unless your life is in danger. However, be that as it may, the grand jury seemed to think that the shooting was justified.


So, in that case, what we have here is a case where a pregnant woman attacked someone with sufficient violence that the victim of the attack was justified in shooting the woman. The law says that if you do something that causes the death of a fetus, but did not deliberately caused that death, you can be charged with manslaughter.


The legal theory of the charge is straightforward. She initiated a fight. That fight caused the unintentional death of a fetus. That's manslaughter, and it has nothing to do with any anti-abortion law.


Her defense, if she does not plead guilty, will have to be that her own actions did not justify the gunshot which caused the death of the fetus, and therefore she is not responsible. Personally, if I were on the jury, I would be skeptical of any claim that a person being attacked by a pregnant woman had the right to use deadly force, but that depends on the facts of the case, and I have insufficient evidence to make that judgment conclusively.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:11 AM   #29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I'm with Joe. This is absolutely insane.

These lawmakers think of us as mere quasi-sentient incubators, and it's just a plain obvious fact. We're supposed to exhibit just enough sentience to protect a fetus at all costs, but absolutely nothing else. You want to get into an argument with another woman, well, you're the guardian of this fetus now. You should have known it could escalate into violence. You didn't protect your sacred artifact, and now the state is coming down on you. You should do nothing but sit around eating healthy and cooing with joy at your growing belly for at least the 2nd and 3rd trimester. God, it's disgusting.
I see it very differently. The way I see it, these charges depend entirely on the assumption that the woman being charged is a fully sentient and morally responsible human being.

You seem angry that this woman is being treated as if she "should have known it could escalate into violence". But that's exactly the way we normally treat human beings. Men get charged with felony murder all the time, on exactly the same principle. They knew what they were starting, they knew it was wrong, and they knew where it could lead. Are you arguing that women should be held to a lower standard?

Do you think we shouldn't hold you responsible for initiating violence, because you're a woman? Do you think we shouldn't call you to account for the consequences of your violence, because you're a woman? To me, that seems like a drastic and obscenely immoral downgrade of your humanity.

Miscarriages happen. Sometimes they're accidents. Accidental deaths happen, too, and nobody gets charged with a crime for those. But sometimes deaths happen on purpose, or through inexcusable negligence. And sometimes miscarriages happen on purpose, or through inexcusable negligence. Are you arguing that intentional miscarriages should not be criminalized, because doing so dehumanizes women?

I'm open to the argument that intentional miscarriages should not be criminalized. However, it seems to me that because they are an act of intent, such a crime assumes and depends on recognizing the full intellectual and moral humanity of the actor.

---

Your complaint seems to simultaneously demand full human responsibility for yourself, and also reject the notion of being held fully responsible for your actions. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you're a full human being who can make choices and be held accountable for them, or you're not. Which is it?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:12 AM   #30
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Having discussions is the entire purpose of this board. If you don't want to discuss the topic of a thread, don't participate in that thread. Unlike the actual sea lion comic, we won't follow you if you leave. We won't intrude upon the rest of your daily life. That's what makes the sea lion annoying, not the fact that it has disagreeable opinions.
Great. Lets have a 50 page "civil discussion" about whether we should bring back slavery or whether or not rape is a good thing.

At a certain something is so true that demanding we keep having a discussion about it stops being civil.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:12 AM   #31
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,721
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
If we're at the point where there's a law against pregnant women starting fights because she should have known it would escalate and result in her being shot, then I really am moving to the wilderness and giving up on society. Pregnant women are often hormonal, extra emotional - do I need to explain this?
Perhaps that might be a mitigating factor. I don't know.

I assume that during any legal proceeding her lawyers could argue that prior to the pregnancy she had a calm attitude and it was only since her pregnancy that she became overly aggressive (sort of a 'temporary insanity' defense).

But overall I would be careful with any sort of "the hormones made me do it" defense. After all, one of the current arguments against women in politics or other powerful roles is "their hormones make them unstable"... last thing you want to do is add to that argument unnecessarily.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:17 AM   #32
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No. No we're not doing this. We're not doing the whole sea-lioning "I just want to have a civil discussion with you..." thing.
Nobody proposed doing that thing.

I proposed two simple things:

One, reserve judgement until more details emerge; and

Two, reason from your relevant moral and legal principles in the meantime.

Quote:
When a pregnant woman gets shot, you don't arrest her for losing the baby.
I think it depends on the circumstances.

Quote:
I'm not going to go 40 pages of insane hypotheticals and maybes and what ifs and trolley problems.
Then you should probably bail out of this thread now, because it's probably going there anyway, regardless of our best efforts to keep it on track (so to speak).

But right now we don't have to worry about a lot of insane hypotheticals, etc. There's just the one: A woman initiates violence, resulting in a self-defense act by another person that causes the aggressor's miscarriage. Unless you disagree with the principle of felony murder, or you disagree with the principle of criminal miscarriage, there's not much to object to, here.

Do you disagree with either of those principles? It's okay if you do. I won't try to convince you otherwise. I just want to understand where you're coming from on this.

If she'd induced a miscarriage through any other means, would you want to see her charged?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:26 AM   #33
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
If we're at the point where there's a law against pregnant women starting fights because she should have known it would escalate and result in her being shot, then I really am moving to the wilderness and giving up on society. Pregnant women are often hormonal, extra emotional - do I need to explain this? For ****'s sake. How many people in the thread have been pregnant? I'm sure at least a few, or some will come in. It doesn't give you psychic powers, and it can interfere with your emotions and judgment (not that she could have known how this would turn out even with unaffected judgment).
There's already a law against women starting fights, under any circumstances. It's not even a sexist law; it applies equally to men.

I'm extremely dubious of your argument, which seems to assume that pregnant women lose some part of their essential humanity, and become subhuman for a time. I really don't want to live in a society that says pregnant women can't be held responsible for their choices.

Quote:
I don't understand how the charges could have been dropped against the other woman.
Hypothetically? It was found the other woman acted in self-defense.

Quote:
This story is full of holes and doesn't make sense.
Then you should probably reserve judgement until some of those gaps are filled in.

Quote:
But that doesn't matter, because people have become so desensitized to the fact that pregnant women are actual people and not just Super Secret Service for The Fetus in Chief, that many find this report basically normal and not something to panic over. That is disturbing. This is the reason I am starting to go a bit loony and be afraid of the world. Look at what is happening.
Ironically, these charges necessarily assume that the woman is an actual person with all the moral rights and responsibilities we customarily recognize in actual persons.

Though, perhaps "actual person" is the wrong term. Someone with a severe cognitive defect is still an actual person in my view, even though we may not hold them morally responsible for some of their choices.

It seems to me that you are arguing that we should treat pregnant women as if they are suffering from a severe cognitive defect. I don't want to do that. Nothing I've ever seen of pregnant women suggests that they become anything less than fully human and fully responsible during their pregnancy.

You should probably very careful with your line of reasoning (such as it is). If you succeed in convincing me that pregnant women shouldn't be held responsible for the violence they start and the consequences of that violence, then I guarantee you I will never vote for a female politician again, nor put a woman in any position of serious responsibility. Not until after menopause, anyway. Between PMS, pregnancy, and the trials of menopause itself, there's just too much risk that a woman will turn into a subhuman animal that causes trouble without being sentient enough to take responsibility. We hold even Donald Trump to a higher standard than that. You're dragging us squarely into "even the worst male president is still better than the best female president" territory.

Last edited by theprestige; 27th June 2019 at 08:30 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:32 AM   #34
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
This charge against the pregnant woman is not a result of any recently passed anti-abortion law.

Reading between the lines, what appears to have happened is that the pregnant woman physically attacked another woman. The second woman drew a gun and shot the pregnant woman, killing the fetus. Now, to my way of thinking, pulling a gun and shooting somebody is a pretty extreme reaction, but apparently a grand jury thought it was justified. I'm pretty skeptical, but I don't have any information about it, and I'm not really keen on the American culture of wandering about armed and shooting someone unless your life is in danger. However, be that as it may, the grand jury seemed to think that the shooting was justified.


So, in that case, what we have here is a case where a pregnant woman attacked someone with sufficient violence that the victim of the attack was justified in shooting the woman. The law says that if you do something that causes the death of a fetus, but did not deliberately caused that death, you can be charged with manslaughter.


The legal theory of the charge is straightforward. She initiated a fight. That fight caused the unintentional death of a fetus. That's manslaughter, and it has nothing to do with any anti-abortion law.


Her defense, if she does not plead guilty, will have to be that her own actions did not justify the gunshot which caused the death of the fetus, and therefore she is not responsible. Personally, if I were on the jury, I would be skeptical of any claim that a person being attacked by a pregnant woman had the right to use deadly force, but that depends on the facts of the case, and I have insufficient evidence to make that judgment conclusively.
This is about where I land, with the details provided. Unless you object to the principle of felony murder, or the principle of criminal miscarriage, I don't see much to complain about here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:34 AM   #35
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Great. Lets have a 50 page "civil discussion" about whether we should bring back slavery or whether or not rape is a good thing.
Or we can just stick to the topic of the thread. All this fear-mongering to shut down discussion is probably unnecessary.

Quote:
At a certain something is so true that demanding we keep having a discussion about it stops being civil.
You're begging the question that we've reached that point.

Some of us would like to see and discuss your reasoning, before agreeing that the discussion is over and the point is resolved.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:41 AM   #36
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,190
Well. I seem to have spammed the thread with several successive posts. I hope the first page is still readable to most interested parties!

In my defense, I would like to explain that none of my posts are sarcastic, and none of them are intended to stifle debate. They all represent my thoughtful and sincere reasoning on the topic so far. They are all intended to provoke thought and encourage thoughtful replies. Any perceived incivility or disrespect on my part is entirely unintentional. I apologize in advance for any offense I may inadvertently cause with my posts. If anything I've said seems personally insulting to you, I assure you that was not my intent. Please let me know, and I'll try to make it right.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:50 AM   #37
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,976
You're comparing this to 'Felony murder', I think? Which isn't a bad fit.

As I understand it, if someone not a fetus had been shot dead by the lady defending herself from the pregnant attacker, if she (the pregnant attacker) had been found guilty of assault then the felony murder charge would have applied?

Is that right?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 08:59 AM   #38
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,386
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Great. Lets have a 50 page "civil discussion" about whether we should bring back slavery or whether or not rape is a good thing.

At a certain something is so true that demanding we keep having a discussion about it stops being civil.
Nobody is demanding you discuss anything. You are free to stay out of the thread, nobody will object. But you seem to want to police what other people can discuss. Why would anyone accept that?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 09:00 AM   #39
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,033
I blame the father of the unborn child. He for sure picked lousy girl friends. And too many.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 09:00 AM   #40
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,104
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You're comparing this to 'Felony murder', I think? Which isn't a bad fit.

As I understand it, if someone not a fetus had been shot dead by the lady defending herself from the pregnant attacker, if she (the pregnant attacker) had been found guilty of assault then the felony murder charge would have applied?

Is that right?
Of course the attack itself would have to be a felony and not simple assault which is a misdemeanor.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.