Yikes! The Uterus Police!

As many as 75% of fertilized eggs do not implant.

Between 30-50% of implanted zygotes end up in miscarriage.

Most are so small that there is nothing to look AT, to determine a problem.


So, will it also be a crime if a woman continues to get pregnant with the same partner after she's miscarried several times of chromosonal anamolies, or placental failures, or some other issue? Will this be considered a criminally poor choice, and therefore she'll be charged with a crime for not ending her partnership with a "genetically incompatible" mate?

If your fallopian tubes are damaged, and you have more than one ectopic pregnancy, should you be thrown in jail or in the ground on account of being a "damaged host?"

I wonder just HOW stupid these people are, or are they just criminally manipulative jerkwads.

reply to post by daryllyn

Sorry for your loss daryllyn. It's very hard to have to "untell" people. I've been there myself a few times, and can't imagine being "investigated" with a fine toothed comb to check out my every action and habit, if it were to come to this.

Frankly, to me it sounds as if he 1.) wants to investigate every case because he doesn't trust physicians, women, or both or 2.) is using this as some sort of strange back-door way of going after physicians who perform abortions, self-inflicted abortions, and maybe neglect here? I'm not great at reading and comprehending legalese, particularly when one section revises elaborates on another, but that's the gist I got.

Quite a few states, including Georgia and Ohio, already have fetal homicide (or feticide) laws on the books. Some of these might cover neglect on the part of the mother, but I'm not sure.

In the case of Ohio it says, 'The law applies to a person, which includes an "unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."' That doesn't sound like it would include the mother? In the case of Georgia, there are actually three statutes already. A summary of this information can be found here www.ncsl.org...

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by pikappa

 

I'm not sure why you're telling me you're an atheist, other than to say that it's not solely a Christian viewpoint?

Yeah, usually when you express an opinion like mine, you immediately get labelled a Christian fundamentalist (among other things). I got tired of having to defend myself against such accusations (not that I think there's something inherently wrong with being a Christian, but in my case, it's just not true and it tends to misrepresent and distort my views).

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Feminized society? Interesting. What specifically do you mean by this?

I mean a society that has become accustomed to the "values" and mantras of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, so much so that it's become the cultural norm. I mean a society where people use the term "misogynist" to refer to anyone who dares criticize women, or even so much as refuses to bend to the self-evident truth that women are the answer to every problem in the world. I mean a society where more and more women seem to be learning to take advantage of nonsensical rape laws to exact revenge on men who supposedly wronged them in some way, or to get away with their latest sexual escapade - yet to suggest that women do, often in fact, lie about rape, is still more than enough to earn you the label of "woman-hater".

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
This guy is insane and a control-freak misogynist.

Perhaps, but I've seen nothing so far that makes me think so.

Hey guys - if you have sex with a woman you know has previously had a miscarriage, is smoking, drinking, or has some internal damage, or a genetic predisposition to miscarriages and you get her pregnant and that pregnancy ends in miscarriage....

are you criminally liable for soliciting the services of a host whom is a bad choice? Where you knew that you had a high chance of "killing" a fetus with your bad choice?

Oh, and for the Conspiracy Angle:

Has it occured to you that this effectively makes most fertile couples potential criminals?

If you value life, and believe that fertility is an important aspect of human behaviour then embracing legislation which effectively makes ALL fertile people into criminals if they dare to actually try to have children should be VERY concerning to you.

This doesn't protect the population. This more accurately makes FERTILE PEOPLE ENGAGING IN UNPROTECTED SEX INTO CRIMINALS.

That makes this a back-handed population control measure.

Originally posted by Aeons
Hey guys - if you have sex with a woman you know has previously had a miscarriage, is smoking, drinking, or has some internal damage, or a genetic predisposition to miscarriages and you get her pregnant and that pregnancy ends in miscarriage....

are you criminally liable for soliciting the services of a host whom is a bad choice? Where you knew that you had a high chance of "killing" a fetus with your bad choice?

I suppose you might be. Just to be safe we should physically divide society into two camps one side of the country will be people suitable for mating, the other the nots. Never the shall meet because even if the man and woman are fine with the risks we don't want a couple falling in love and resolving their issues.

Yikes, what if someone in your family or your children were determined to be unsuitable, well that's ok I'm sure someone in the other camp will care for existing life.

reply to post by Aeons

Exactly. This type of legislation could open up all sorts of medical privacy issues to the criminal courts. The databases are already so consolidated, it's just a flick of the keyboard away to allow law enforcement and/or social services to know everything about you medically, environmentally (smoke/drink/where you've lived/and so on).

Imagine getting sued by your grown up fetus one day because you and your doctor decided it was okay for you to have a glass of wine a week during pregnancy or because you went to smoky parties. Or heaven forbid the child has a learning disability that costs more for education and they tell you you have to pay due to negligence or an insurance company tells you they're not paying due to your habits that they deem inappropriate. Not so unimaginable. I think people have already tried this.

Hell they already have all our cell records and photos. This would be just one more notch for them.

One wonders what is happening in the heads of the men who thought that this legislation was only going to go after women.

One wonders how hard they are going to start retreating when it occurs to them that their need to shove something down on their favourite kick toy stopped them from seeing that this sort of legislation could also make them into criminals for being active heterosexuals.

The power of the force is telling me that they are in the process of trying to justify why they thought is was perfectly okay a minute ago, and now that it effects them personally, suddenly it seems very unreasonable.

I wonder if cognitive dissonance gives you a headache.

ok try this on for size... 14th amendment of the USA Constitution states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "


if you are unborn you are not a citizen of the united states and therefore do not have any rights at all... see repub immigration policy and "anchor babies"

i am just saying...yes i am pro choice however i am not a woman so it is not my business nor is it my "right" to make a judgment on this subject... just as it is the sole purview of men to determine prostrate decisions ( a direct link to male reproduction)...
but thats just my opinion.... i could be wrong

reply to post by CaDreamer

Isn't that what SCOTUS based or partially based their Roe v Wade decision on?

This legislation we're discussing is probably, I believe, a back-door way to get the state to overturn Roe v Wade.

reply to post by CaDreamer

The bill accounts for that in Section 1 by stating "The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception...Because a fetus is a person, constitutional protection attaches at the moment of conception. It is therefore the duty of the General Assembly to protect the innocent life that is being taken"

It goes on to refute Roe v. Wade by saying:
"(3) Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), wrote: 'when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [to the question of when life begins].'
(4) The General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception;"

And congress apparently has no power because:
"The United States Congress has reserved to itself 'all legislative powers herein vested' according to Article I, Section I of the Constitution of the United States;
'Herein vested' to the United States Congress applies to only five crimes: (1) counterfeiting, (2) piracy, (3) felonies on the high seas, (4) offenses against the law of nations, and (5) treason; according to Article I, Section VIII and Article III, Section III of the Constitution of the United States;
Murder is not counterfeiting, piracy, felony on the high seas, an offense against the law of nations, or treason;
Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;"

So they know when life exists, and can override Congress based on the 10th amendment. I'm pretty sure that fact alone could get this bill thrown out though.

reply to post by SevenBeans


If you want to throw your money away with this stupid idea of a uterus police that's cool. But as far as im concerned my money is already being used up by other idiots, I don't need a maniac who's basing his views on a book that's been re written thousands of times burning my money when I could be using it to save up for my family.

The government has NO BUSINESS sticking their big noses in private matters like miscarriages. Not MANY of them happen because of neglect, they happen for many different reasons. Miscarriages are horrible and this a$$hole has no right to feel that the police needs to be involved or anything needs to be filed. He can hold his family hostage for all he wants, but seriously people, who would vote for this psychopath?

A woman will do what she chooses. Regardless if you like it or not. It's wrong to be smoking, drinking ect while pregnant but you have NO right to tell a woman what to do. It's a horrible thing, and I wish women were smart enough to think about their child. You can't control other people. Get over it.

what will be interesting is how the judges will write the warrants...will they issue "no-knock" warrants for entry into womens' vaginas?

Originally posted by celimonster
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

If you want to throw your money away with this stupid idea of a uterus police that's cool. But as far as im concerned my money is already being used up by other idiots, I don't need a maniac who's basing his views on a book that's been re written thousands of times burning my money when I could be using it to save up for my family.

The government has NO BUSINESS sticking their big noses in private matters like miscarriages. Not MANY of them happen because of neglect, they happen for many different reasons. Miscarriages are horrible and this a$$hole has no right to feel that the police needs to be involved or anything needs to be filed. He can hold his family hostage for all he wants, but seriously people, who would vote for this psychopath?

A woman will do what she chooses. Regardless if you like it or not. It's wrong to be smoking, drinking ect while pregnant but you have NO right to tell a woman what to do. It's a horrible thing, and I wish women were smart enough to think about their child. You can't control other people. Get over it.

Okay, so I have the right to kick a pregnant woman in the ovaries, and leave her to die of internal hemorrhage on the sidewalk, I guess? Hey, I know it's wrong, but what I choose to do with my right foot is a private matter, regardless if you like it or not, right? Yeah, sounds like a nice world to live in.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Yes Seven Beans, I believe a woman has ultimate say about what she does with her body. You have no say wether you are the unborn child's father or not.
The unborn baby is basically a parasite until birth occurs and the baby can then breathe on it's own.

Originally posted by pikappa

Originally posted by celimonster
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

If you want to throw your money away with this stupid idea of a uterus police that's cool. But as far as im concerned my money is already being used up by other idiots, I don't need a maniac who's basing his views on a book that's been re written thousands of times burning my money when I could be using it to save up for my family.

The government has NO BUSINESS sticking their big noses in private matters like miscarriages. Not MANY of them happen because of neglect, they happen for many different reasons. Miscarriages are horrible and this a$$hole has no right to feel that the police needs to be involved or anything needs to be filed. He can hold his family hostage for all he wants, but seriously people, who would vote for this psychopath?

A woman will do what she chooses. Regardless if you like it or not. It's wrong to be smoking, drinking ect while pregnant but you have NO right to tell a woman what to do. It's a horrible thing, and I wish women were smart enough to think about their child. You can't control other people. Get over it.

Okay, so I have the right to kick a pregnant woman in the ovaries, and leave her to die of internal hemorrhage on the sidewalk, I guess? Hey, I know it's wrong, but what I choose to do with my right foot is a private matter, regardless if you like it or not, right? Yeah, sounds like a nice world to live in.

No you don't have that right Seven Beans because the woman isn't dependent on your body to survive. She is separate to you and what you do to your own body does not affect her.

Utter crap, although I do agree with a PERSON accusing another PERSON of rape not being considered a victim until the trial is over and they won.
A lot of people (and yeah, generally women - because they're easier to victimise) claim they've been raped when no such event has taken place; I don't think a person's livelyhood and reputation should be destroyed for PC's sake..

reply to post by Bee2010


We're all "parasites" on this planet. The value of human life can't be made to depend on such silly practical inconveniences.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


GOOD GRIEF!

When are the WOMEN in the white coats with a straitjacket tailormade for this turd going to knock on his door????

There are EIGHT years between my brother and I. Who knows how many spontaneous abortions my Mom suffered through to have the children she so wanted. I do know she aborted just before she became pregnant with me and she had numerous abortions prior to that.

From what my vet said you usually get 20% abortion rate on mares, normally during the first three months. Heck a lot of the women who have a "late" period may have aborted!

reply to post by Aeons


I don't really care. Maybe if states passed law's like this women would know what real oppression is all about. So they would know what it feels like. Because let's face it, after Duke, the Winkler incident and a million and one other incidents + feminist's using men's "traditional" role to justify our defacto indentured servitude, why should I care about the oppressor class? For some reason Marxism when it comes to economic issue's doesn't make too much sense, but apply it to gender issue's and all of a sudden it fit's the bill to the T.

You see it don't you? After 30 odd years of the feminist, female supremacist movement demonizing, attacking and seeking to reduce males to a sub-human status all it has caused is ill will towards woman-kind. Garbage like that bill in Georgia is only going to increase as time goes by and the b&*^% of it is the more it's fought the more common it will become. And if it isn't fought it will just happen all the faster.

Women fell for the traditionalist trap laid in the late 70's(after the ERA failed to pass). Because you have to remember these traditionalist's are often more insane or just as insane as the most extreme leftist lesbian seperatist feminist. The bait was put down in the 90's with the zeal to uphold men's "traditional" responsibilities, albeit the ones that benefited women(financial) . Well there is a funny thing called balance, something which always tries to exert itself.

On the one hand this suck's because make no mistake about it, women are human beings too(and as such capable of being sentient). But on the other, after dealing with a sexist femnazi controlled educational system and the whole girl's club mentality women by and large seem to have(with people like those behind this bill acting as womenfolk's "protectors"). It's like the old story of the scorpion and the frog. Women should of seen this coming, and in the end we reap what we sow.

You have to understand that the reason why traditionalist's go along with the whole man-hating thing is because if they didn't they wouldn't be able to turn the clock back. And if you can't see how this is relevant, then it just means your predisposed to being run over by the forces of History instead of being able to see the flow and getting out of the way.

But like I said before, the daughters of Eve victimized the son's of Adam so much these last few years that if they can't see the obvious way out then I just don't have much sympathy.This is why I am so radical about this issue. Because I see where the slippery slope is going, because I see where all the "good little" lemmings are running and I don't like it. We are all human beings and should be treated as such. Biological organism's capable of sentient thought and sentient, individual perspectives.