|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2015 13:19 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 13:16 wei2coolman wrote:
that's disturbing to say the least. though i doubt she'll do 20 years. I'm pretty sure a half decent defense attorney can claim temporary insanity due to hormones and adrenaline and stuff. lol. she already lost.
On April 01 2015 13:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 13:16 wei2coolman wrote:
that's disturbing to say the least. though i doubt she'll do 20 years. I'm pretty sure a half decent defense attorney can claim temporary insanity due to hormones and adrenaline and stuff. from the read, the trial is already over; though parole is pretty common. Insanity defense works pretty rarely in general, from what I've heard (though how well it works has shifted over time, it did better aways back in the 70s or so)
oh. welp i just read the rest of the article. it looks like it was planned while she was preggers...
if you're gunna go that far, just spend the money to get a proper abortion... :/
|
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that private Medicaid providers cannot sue to force states to raise reimbursement rates in the face of rising medical costs. The 5-to-4 decision is a blow to many doctors and health care companies and their complaint that state Medicaid reimbursement rates are so low that health care providers often lose money on Medicaid patients.
In 2009, Idaho centers that provided care for some 6,200 mentally disabled children and adults went to court to challenge the state's Medicaid reimbursement rates. They contended the state had adopted a Medicaid plan with reimbursement rates set at 2006 levels, despite the fact that costs had gone up significantly over the three intervening years. The lower courts agreed and raised the state's reimbursement rates. But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, declaring that private Medicaid providers have no right to sue under the Medicaid law. If a state is not providing fair reimbursement rates, the court said, the only recourse Medicaid providers have is to ask the federal Department of Health and Human Services to withhold all Medicaid funds from the state — a step so punitive that it has never happened.
The 5-to-4 vote crossed the court's usual ideological lines, with the liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joining four of the court's conservatives to provide the fifth and decisive vote against such provider lawsuits and the conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joining three of the court's liberals in dissent.
Source
|
You know you screwed up as a conservative when even NASCAR is disappointed with how much of a jerk you are.
NASCAR followed the lead of the NBA, WNBA, NCAA and others and voiced its concerns about Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act on Tuesday. The controversial law protects business owners who want to decline services to gays, lesbians and others on the basis of sexual orientation.
“NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana,” NASCAR Senior Vice President and Chief Communications Officer Brett Jewkes said in a statement. “We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance. We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race.”
Source
|
On April 01 2015 13:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 13:16 wei2coolman wrote:
that's disturbing to say the least. though i doubt she'll do 20 years. I'm pretty sure a half decent defense attorney can claim temporary insanity due to hormones and adrenaline and stuff. from the read, the trial is already over; though parole is pretty common. Insanity defense works pretty rarely in general, from what I've heard (though how well it works has shifted over time, it did better aways back in the 70s or so)
Yeah, the last point is correct here. You actually give up a lot of rights if you claim insanity and usually end up confined anyways, at the mercy of an external psychiatrist who can keep you longer than a normal jail term and an indefinite amount of time. It's not the kind of thing where you get off from a crime then get to shout "Praise Jesus, I'm cured!" as you leave the courthouse and walk away having played a "get out of jail free" card, which is how I think many people see it.
Think more like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2.
|
The distinction between infanticide and abortion isn't very philosophically coherent. I am sympathic towards Michael Tooley's argument that an organism only has a right to life "if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity."
|
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later.
|
That story is very disturbing... I'm supposed to be outraged that a particular law caught her than that she threw the kid away? Not gonna happen.
|
On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later.
Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any.
|
On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any.
So...people with mental disorders who can't possess a concept of self are not worthy of life? Okay, mein Herr...
Sentience is a rotten way to judge the value of life. By that logic, a third of your whole life is "unworthy" because you're asleep and temporarily lose your awareness of self.
|
On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any.
No its not. Its much more subjective and nebulous than qualities such as "conception", "viability", and "birth" and after the last nearly all of the countervailing arguments in favor of abortion evaporate. Moreover, it results in the horrific result of killing walking, talking, 12 month olds who cannot articulate that very mature concept that you have laid out. And not just 12 months, you are in favor of killing average kids much older, like age 6 years +.
|
Norway28924 Posts
I'm incredibly pro-abortion, but I absolutely cannot see how 'if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity' is a good way to judge whether something has the right to life. The sanctity of all life is something I can get on board with - I just think that being able to plan when you want to become a parent makes life so much better both from the point of view of the parent and the child that it's not a sufficiently powerful argument against abortion. Not to mention that it's one of those things that you just.. can't stop. People were having abortions in the past also, quite frequently so, even when it was incredibly incredibly risky. And abortionless societies have way more infanticide..
But I have no problems restricting it to like, 12-16 weeks unless there's fetal damage or mother is likely to be endangered, seems fair to expect that a decision can be made before that.
|
On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any.
well yeah I think most people will agree that in the end it comes down to finding a practical solution that we're okay with. Nothing about some holy black and white line that shows at what point something is considered a living human being and at what point it isn't but rather a line we put up ourselves because we need one.
But (self)conscience is about as bad as it gets for that line... you can't possible be in favor of killing 2 year olds...
|
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome.
|
On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome.
Except they weren't children yet.
|
On April 01 2015 21:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome. Except they weren't children yet.
but they were going to be. As several people have pointed out the 'conciousness' criteria is pretty stupid. A comatose person doesn't lose their rights because they aren't concious.
The implication is what really matters. A foetus is already existing life that will eventually develop into a real person. By aborting it you take that chance away.
|
On April 01 2015 21:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 21:41 kwizach wrote:On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome. Except they weren't children yet. but they were going to be. As several people have pointed out the 'conciousness' criteria is pretty stupid. A comatose person doesn't lose their rights because they aren't concious. The implication is what really matters. A foetus is already existing life that will eventually develop into a real person. By aborting it you take that chance away.
A fetus isn't a person. Children are not aborted, embryos and fetuses are.
|
Actually "Viability" isn't all that nebulous. There is point to it.
In the US "viability" kicks in after 20 weeks weeks or so. That is when the fetus has an outside chance to breathe air.
If the lungs aren't developed enough to handle air, then it will die outside the womb, so it's not viable (at that moment).
If the fetus is viable, then State protections kick in.
Planned Parenthood v Casey :
The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact, just as it has done since Roe was decided; which is to say that no change in Roe's factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for overruling it.
** To push "viability" much lower than where it is now... you are going to need an incredible technological/medical leap and be able to mimic the oxygen transer through the placenta somehow.
|
On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome.
I think "sentience" is a poor cut-off for when it should be legal to kill your fetus/child, but what is the difference between aborting a fetus because it is deformed or deficient and aborting a fetus because you just don't want the child? Our populations are already wildly out of control, if people want to avoid having eight children per family, that's fine with me.
|
On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome.
Sanctity of life is a no-brainer? Most definitions of life include animals, plants and bacteria ...
On April 01 2015 21:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 21:41 kwizach wrote:On April 01 2015 21:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Sanctity of life should be an absolute no-brainer both for religious and non-religious people. I also find the whole early pregnancy diagnostic thing disturbing that's legal in Denmark for example, which has resulted in lots of abortions of children with down syndrome. Except they weren't children yet. but they were going to be. As several people have pointed out the 'conciousness' criteria is pretty stupid. A comatose person doesn't lose their rights because they aren't concious. The implication is what really matters. A foetus is already existing life that will eventually develop into a real person. By aborting it you take that chance away.
Aaah, every sperm is sacred ... think about all the potential humans you could help bring to life right now, how immoral of you not do it.
Think about all the miscarriages we allow to happen in the first few weeks, it is estimated that about 50% of all fertilized eggs die spontaneously, most without even being noticed. Isn't it horrible?
No, because potential persons are not persons. It's certainly good to draw the line around the definition of a person cautiously. But including single cells and small cell clusters is not a good idea. We have to find a middle ground, and most countries already have.
|
On April 01 2015 12:56 GreenHorizons wrote:This is not going to help Indiana... Show nested quote +An Indiana judge on Monday sentenced a 33-year-old woman, Purvi Patel, to 20 years in prison on charges of feticide and neglect of a dependent.
Patel is the first woman in Indiana to be convicted under the state’s feticide law. Activists say the case highlights the way that prosecutors across the U.S. are increasingly using laws designed to protect expecting mothers to criminalize women for terminating a pregnancy or allegedly harming an unborn child.
In 2013, Patel was arrested after seeking help in an emergency room for excessive bleeding, with an umbilical cord protruding from her vagina. She first told staff she hadn’t been pregnant but then revealed that she had given birth at her home in Granger, Indiana, according to court documents.
Patel told an investigator that she thought the fetus wasn’t alive and that she left it in a plastic bag in a dumpster outside her family home.
A police investigation recovered the fetus and charged Patel with killing her baby.
"I assumed because the baby was dead there was nothing to do," the South Bend Tribune, a local newspaper, reported she said in a police interview that was performed just hours after she was admitted to the hospital.
"I've never been in this situation. I've never been pregnant before," she allegedly told the police from the hospital while recovering from sedation and blood loss, before she had legal counsel.
Reproductive rights advocates say Patel’s case isn’t the first instance in which a woman has been accused under fetal homicide laws.
Although the laws were intended to deal with crimes against pregnant women and to target illegal abortion providers, they are increasingly used to prosecute women who miscarry, have stillbirths, try to terminate their own pregnancies or are accused of harming a fetus by taking drugs, according to Sara Ainsworth, legal director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW).
“We are gravely concerned that this case represents a trend in punishing pregnant women for their pregnancy outcomes and demonstrates that women will be targeted for terminating their pregnancies, even though abortion opponents routinely claim that if abortion were re-criminalized in the U.S., no pregnant woman would be punished,” she said. Source
Reading that, it sounds like she was very confused and probably not mentally 100% there. However, it also sounds like she gave birth (home, and alone, which is already something that should not happen), and then killed the baby and threw it in the dumpster.
That latter is manslaughter, regardless of what else happens. Why was it ruled feticide rather than infanticide? The article seems incomplete at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
