Celeste Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 "A Georgia state representative has reintroduced an anti-abortion bill that would make miscarriages a felony if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement." 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." Although this bill probably won't make it through the commitee (again), I'm outraged. What makes anyone think that they can even suggest such a thing. I've miscarried a few times and it's anyone's guess as to why it happened...to think that I would have to go on trial to defend myself and could get the death penalty..isn't it traumatic enough? How do we go about stopping these crazy fanatics if people keep electing them? Anyone agree with this bill? Thoughts? My link modest, Turtle and JMJones0424 3 Quote
Turtle Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 "A Georgia state representative has reintroduced an anti-abortion bill that would make miscarriages a felony if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement." 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." Although this bill probably won't make it through the commitee (again), I'm outraged. What makes anyone think that they can even suggest such a thing. I've miscarried a few times and it's anyone's guess as to why it happened...to think that I would have to go on trial to defend myself and could get the death penalty..isn't it traumatic enough? How do we go about stopping these crazy fanatics if people keep electing them? Anyone agree with this bill? Thoughts? My link franklin is white, male, a southerner, a republican, and a christian. that's what makes him think he can do what he's doing. the people electing him share most or all of those qualities. can't you feel the love? :evil: good grief! :doh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Franklin...Representative Franklin is a graduate of Covenant College in Lookout Mountain' date=' Ga., where he received a degree in Biblical studies and business administration. ... [/quote'] edit: voting demographics by age, gender, & race in georgia, by county.http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/voter_registration/2010%20Stats/By%20Age,%20Race,%20&%20Gender_2010_General%20Election.pdf Quote
Qfwfq Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 A (wo)man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In criminal code of most countries the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Are you sure that bill explicitly states the defendant would have to prove there was no human intervention? It isn't quite the same if the prosecutor would have to prove there had been; in this case of course the guilty party would be whoever acted with intention, including a drunkard that punched the ladiy's belly. How do we go about stopping these crazy fanatics if people keep electing them?Abolish democracy. Otherwise, if voters are dumb the result is likely to be dumb. The only alternative is to have better voters. modest 1 Quote
CraigD Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Calling dominionists dominionistsHow do we go about stopping these crazy fanatics if people keep electing them?My short – and maybe optimistically naive – answer: via the courts. As long as Roe v. Wade is not overturned by the SCOTUS, no law restricting abortion, spontaneous or induced in the first 2 trimesters, can withstand legal scrutiny. More cause for concern than the recent wave of religious extremist elected the state offices and the US legislature, I think, are religious extremists in law enforcement and the courts with which they interact. While women in the US cannot be legally denied access to abortion and contraception, they can blocked by threats and intimidation, if they, pharmacists providing contraceptives, or physicians performing abortions, believes that they can be injured or killed by someone objecting to her or his actions. More worrying, to me, than the various proposed laws to criminalize abortion or contraception, are laws decriminalizing assault and murders intended to prevent abortion or contraception, such as a recent proposed change to a South Dakota statute to expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to arguably include such killings. If interpreted as opponents claim, this might afford the same legal immunity to a person who kills an MD planning to perform an abortion as to a person who kills a person who breaks into her or his home planning to murder her or his children. (see SD bill 'license to kill' abortion providers?, February 15, 2011 via the AP) Even the rumor of such laws appear to effectively deter abortion providers from practicing in some states. Most worrying to me is the possibility that future religious activist US presidents might appoint religious activists to the Supreme Court, and that that court would overturn Roe v. Wade, and even Griswold v. Connecticut (the SCOTUS decision legalizing contraception), allowing various states to entirely outlaw all induced abortion and even contraception. Only by not electing such future US presidents can this be avoided, I think. The surest way to avoid this, I think, is to promote voting among younger Americans. Various reliable surveys have show the sort of religious activism – let’s assign it a recognized term, dominionism – to correlate strongly with age, so as the population ages, the strongest proponents of American theocracy, who are concentrated among the older, will die. So, I think, if present day young citizens will vote in large numbers for the next couple of decades, dominionists will then be such a small minority they will no-longer be able to elect dominionists to federal office. For this optimistic scenario to succeed, it’s also necessary to assure that people currently under 18, and people to be born, do not adopt dominionist beliefs. An important factor in insuring this, I think, is to assure that most American children receive strong scientific educations, reducing the likelihood that they in ignorance adopt nonfactual religious beliefs. Moontanman, JMJones0424 and Turtle 3 Quote
Qfwfq Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 My short – and maybe optimistically naive – answer: via the courts.Courts are not so directly controlled by the people. That's why I don't prefer common law systems, in which the judicial shares such a substantial degree of legislative power. Despite the highly Catholic tradition over here (Italy, for those less acquainted), abortion has not been illegal since 1975, when the constitutional court established the distinction between protecting the woman (already a person) and the embryo (to become a person), clarifying the issue of constitutional guarantees for both. Two years later, parliament passed a law laying down full details about the role of pregnancy in society and voluntary interruption of it. Catholic organizations immediately battled against it and attempted to wholly repeal it by a popular referendum, which failed. This law, still so much opposed by Catholics, serves to guarantee rights to conscientious and responsible procreation, recognize the social value of maternity and protect human life from the start and it states that voluntary interuption of pregnancy is not to be seen as a means of birth control. It gives women a high degree of choice in the first trimester, interruption may be justified by psychological and financial considerations. It establishes that it is included in public health care and also that an MD who is morally against it cannot be compelled to carry it out. Apart from parliament or a popular referendum, a law can be repealed only by the constitutional court, the appointment of its members is not in control of one single body. At that time, uninterruptedly since 1945, all prime ministers had been of the staunch Catholic party Democrazia Cristiana which had just begun to have a less solid grip on power, forming a governing coalition; starting shortly after those events and for an abundant decade yet, the PM was not always (although usually) of the same Catholic party and otherwise an ally of theirs. In those days, they were still running the country in tight cooperation with Catholic instituions, the Priests were still an authority for many folks and held their weekly hour of teaching in jr. and sr. high schools. Despite this, they had already lost their battle against divorce too. It is quite different in the Irish Republic, where only the youngest generations have been challenging Catholic tradition; abortion is still illegal and divorce exists only since 1997. Quote
Celeste Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Posted March 2, 2011 franklin is white, male, a southerner, a republican, and a christian. that's what makes him think he can do what he's doing. the people electing him share most or all of those qualities. can't you feel the love? :evil: good grief! :doh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Franklin edit: voting demographics by age, gender, & race in georgia, by county.http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/voter_registration/2010%20Stats/By%20Age,%20Race,%20&%20Gender_2010_General%20Election.pdf Turtle, always right to the point. You make me smile. :) Thanks! Quote
Celeste Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Posted March 2, 2011 A (wo)man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In criminal code of most countries the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Are you sure that bill explicitly states the defendant would have to prove there was no human intervention? It isn't quite the same if the prosecutor would have to prove there had been; in this case of course the guilty party would be whoever acted with intention, including a drunkard that punched the ladiy's belly. It is my understanding that the women would be liable to provide proof that the miscarriage occured naturally. As shown below, the bill also suggests creating a special investigating unit (uterus police) and a county registration list for fetal deaths". HB1110 (1) 'Fetus' means a person at any point of development from and including the moment111 of conception through the moment of birth. Such term includes all medical or popular112 designations of an unborn child from the moment of conception such as conceptus,113 zygote, embryo, homunculus, and similar terms. 205 31-10-19. Preparation and filing of reports of spontaneous fetal death shall be as follows:206 (1) When a dead fetus is delivered in an institution, the person in charge of the institution207 or that person's designated representative shall prepare and file the report;208 (2) When a dead fetus is delivered outside an institution, the physician in attendance at209 or immediately after delivery shall prepare and file the report;210 (3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs211 without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is212 required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the213 proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare214 and file the report within 30 days; Abolish democracy. Otherwise, if voters are dumb the result is likely to be dumb. The only alternative is to have better voters. I humbly disagree. I don't believe democracy defined as "Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus, direct referendum, or elected representatives, exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests", has anything to do with Rep. Franklin or his agenda's, and I don't believe the blame should be on the voters. Show me an honest government candidate, and I'll eat my hat. :) Historically, candidates lie about their agenda's and their promises are only used to get elected. Case in point: Of the 500 plus promises/pledges made by Obama, only 134 of the 500 plus have actually been implemented since 2008. (Politifact.com) http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Furthermore, he has out and out broken important promises/pledges like Re-establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and more importantly, his pledge to introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year:"I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I'm promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible." Celeste Quote
Qfwfq Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 It is my understanding that the women would be liable to provide proof that the miscarriage occured naturally.Is there a specific part of that bill which suggests it? The fact that it provides for creating a special investigating unit actually implies that they would have to seek proof of a deliberate cause. While I agree the bill is hysterically outrageous, I don't quite believe it lays the onus of proof of innocence on the would-be-mother, which would be in stark contrast to a fundamental principle shared by what we call modern nations. I don't believe democracy defined as "Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus, direct referendum, or elected representatives, exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests", has anything to do with Rep. Franklin or his agenda's, and I don't believe the blame should be on the voters.Maybe it has nothing to do with his agenda, but it was an answer to your question. If you think the blame shouldn't be on the voters, vote for Adolf Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and then blame everything on them. :shrug: Show me an honest government candidate, and I'll eat my hat.I'll eat my own, even before showing you. The idea of representative democracy isn't to blindly trust the folks you vote for, it should be that voters keep their representatives in line. The trouble is that people don't, they let them do as they please and not only during the same term. Obviously, there will always be different opinions and as long as the extremist ones are supported by a small minority you only need to hope they don't catch on too much. Start worrying when that kind of thing is getting 20, 30 or 40 percent, meanwhile put in your 2 cents of talking against it. If you really think Obama is worse than his opponents, then vote for them next time. Quote
modest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 A (wo)man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In criminal code of most countries the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Are you sure that bill explicitly states the defendant would have to prove there was no human intervention? It isn't quite the same if the prosecutor would have to prove there had been; in this case of course the guilty party would be whoever acted with intention, including a drunkard that punched the ladiy's belly. That is my understanding of US law If someone were charged with voluntary manslaughter, for example, the prosecution has to prove that the death was intentional or that the defendant acted with malice. The defendant does not have to prove that it was unintentional. ~modest Qfwfq 1 Quote
dduckwessel Posted May 31, 2011 Report Posted May 31, 2011 I was surprised that no one has ever asked (to my knowledge) Rep. Bobby Franklin and others like him, if they want to put their money where their mouth is and personally take care of those children they are purported to save! Abortion is a difficult enough decision and should be left to the discretion of the mother. I do wish that abortionists could find a better solution though; partial birth abortions (sucking out the brains), and other methods are just cruel. When I had to have the family cat put down I had her put to sleep. Couldn't we rethink the current methods of abortion? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.