Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

From a standing-start, yes it can be for real. It's possible the charge relates to an act of culpable homicide, which includes manslaughter, the chosen charge indicating there may have been no intent to kill. The fight-starter did not foresee the consequences of her act but as she initiated the fight.....

Google provided me with some pieces of wisdom: 1. Culpable homicide is a form of criminal homicide that can either indicate that there was or was not intent to kill a person, depending on the country it is used in.

2. There are three types of culpable homicide: murder , manslaughter and infanticide . Killings classified as not culpable are justifiable killings ; thus the term is used to define the criminal intent or mens rea of a killing. Non-culpable homicide includes those committed in self-defence.

It all depends on the law/s of the state in which the act took place, which is probable where your question came into play. I'll pose a different unintended charges scenario example [not for part of this debate] Pregnant woman driver - car - alcohol - crash - consequences unintended but foreseeable.

Kidchameleon

Check out the unborn victims of violence act 2004 (US) and the term "foeticide" for more context on that case

splinter65

robindch wrote: »

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

Apparently the woman who fired the shot acted in self defense so no charges there.
The woman she shot apparently instigated the aggression and pursued the shooter with reckless disregard for her unborn baby.
There’s no winners here.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

............

There’s no winners here.

Darwin, rough but true

Follow someone who has a gun, you are going to get shot

Cabaal

gctest50 wrote: »

Darwin, rough but true

Follow someone who has a gun, you are going to get shot

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Sense doesn't come into the picture with the law.

Alabama also made sex toys illegal as they are a danger to the public, yet like the rest of America people can buy military grade firearms.
Now I am open to correction, but I haven't yet heard a news report stating x number killed and wounded by a perpetrator armed with an automatic dildo.

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

x number killed and wounded by a perpetrator armed with an automatic dildo.

Waterford Whispers is that way >>>

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Foeticide?

Or, since it's Alabama, perhaps the foetus should have been carrying a gun.

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

A criminal charge might not have been applicable here. There also is the position of the [elected ?] DA in the law area involved to consider when it comes to a death of the unborn....

feticide
[ˈfiːtɪsʌɪd]

NOUN
foeticide (noun) · foeticide (plural noun)
destruction or abortion of a fetus.
synonyms:
termination · miscarriage · feticide.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0614/1055371-podcast-voices-of-the-8th-one-year-on/

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

Bredabe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

I think they are hoping that if they repeat this stuff enough that some ppl will start to think they are true and change their vote in case of another ref in the distance future.

Hotblack Desiato

There will never be another eighth amendment. Ever.

Thing is, they don't need a referendum to completely ban abortion. It'd be political suicide, but all they need to do is pass a law. Which is why it is essential that all pro-choice voters only ever vote for pro-choice candidates.

As Ailbhe Smyth said in the podcast, rights which have been granted can so easily be taken away.

uptherebels

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"many yes voters are regretting their vote"

She makes that claim alot on social media, ignores all requests for evidence of this, but that is expected.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0614/1055371-podcast-voices-of-the-8th-one-year-on/

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

Still whining about repeal shield on twitter too. No wonder she wasn't allowed on the Rte debate.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Still whining about repeal shield on twitter too. No wonder she wasn't allowed on the Rte debate.

So are some members of this site.

The irony is that they also complain that anyone arguing against them and showing where they said x or y regarding specific cases are bullying them and that said bullies are being put on their ignore list.

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

So are some members of this site.

The irony is that they also complain that anyone arguing against them and showing where they said x or y regarding specific cases are bullying them and that said bullies are being put on their ignore list.

More right-wing snowflakery. Soon as it goes against them, 'you're so mean! whine whine whine.' SAD.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS.

Reminds me of before the ref when the claim from the pro life side was the "silent majority" of no voters
:rolleyes:

aloyisious

Touchy one this, even with the touchiness the topic already has. I saw from last week that on 06th July the anti-abortion campaign has a rally in Dublin, the same day the Trans-Pride march is on in Dublin. I was worried about the chance that supporters of both might meet but took it as a taken that the GS would ensure there would be hours between both events. Seems there will be at least - EDIT: 2 hours -between them as both start from Parnell Square GoR. I see on facebook today that ARC will be at the Trans Pride event so hope there will be no carry-over directly between both planned events.

On a related matter, I saw yesterday the posters for the anti-abortion campaign event are ended with a .Com and not a .IE net address. Does the difference between both net addresses indicates anything specific as to the .Com address location on the globe?

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

On a related matter, I saw yesterday the posters for the anti-abortion campaign event are ended with a .Com and not a .IE net address. Does the difference between both net addresses indicates anything specific as to the .Com address location on the globe?

Not particularly. While i use .ie myself there are plenty of Irish companies using .com and plenty of international companies selling into Ireland using a .ie website to give the impression of being Irish. All just marketing really.

Hotblack Desiato

Answer to your question aloyisious - No.

It's a lot easier to get an .ie than it used to be - I'm not sure if having a business establishment in Ireland is still a requirement to get an .ie but that would be no barrier to the pro-life side who have many established companies - mostly at the same address and would be no barrier to having it funded from overseas either, if they wanted.

Cheaper to get a .com - but I expect the reports on Sunday to mention the usual free buses from around the country and lots of professionally printed placards, funding has never been an issue for them...

robindch

An Alabama district attorney has dropped manslaughter charges against Marshae Jones, 28, the pregnant woman whose unborn child died after she was shot in the stomach:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849040

Igotadose

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293


I even have a candidate line item in the budget to take from - the ring-fenced funding for the greyhound industry!

volchitsa

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293

You would think, wouldn't you? Many prolifers don't agree with "artificial" contraception - though I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that this is also the catholic church's stance - and I don't see any thing in that article that suggests they are going to change their minds on that soon, unfortunately.

smacl

volchitsa wrote: »

You would think, wouldn't you? Many prolifers don't agree with "artificial" contraception - though I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that this is also the catholic church's stance - and I don't see any thing in that article that suggests they are going to change their minds on that soon, unfortunately.

One could argue that a significant number of abortions relating to unwanted pregnancy in the past were due to lack of access to contraception for many, which in turn was due in no small part to the Catholic church.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

One could argue that a significant number of abortions relating to unwanted pregnancy in the past were due to lack of access to contraception for many, which in turn was due in no small part to the Catholic church.

Re artificial contraception, one may understand its directly related to the stance the Christian church says God has on sex, pregnancy and offspring and it being a sacred thing. Nothing about sex outside marriage which Genesis has God approving of, looking at Onan, his duty to his brother and his brothers wife and getting allmightilu annoyed when said duty was not performed, and a certain other sinful act.

Hotblack Desiato

Dept of Health public consultation on access to contraception is here:

https://health.gov.ie/consultations/

Closing date for submissions is 5th August.

Public consultation on access to contraception – have your say!

The Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution has recommended:

“The introduction of a scheme for the provision of the most effective method of contraception, free of charge and having regard to personal circumstances, to all people who wish to avail of them within the State.”

The Working Group on Access to Contraception was set up in 2019 to decide how best to implement this recommendation. The Working Group is made up of officials from the Department of Health. Its work involves:

• Doing research and gathering evidence
• Considering legal and regulatory issues
• Consulting stakeholders like you

The Working Group are asking stakeholders and members of the public to share their views on this issue by filling in the consultation questionnaire. Everyone is welcome to take part.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Dept of Health public consultation on access to contraception is here:

https://health.gov.ie/consultations/

Closing date for submissions is 5th August.

Can't help feeling many prolifers are hoist on their own petard here - I don't suppose that promoting free contraception for hussies is something they ever saw as a goal, never mind becoming their last stand against abortion.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Can't help feeling many prolifers are hoist on their own petard here - I don't suppose that promoting free contraception for hussies is something they ever saw as a goal, never mind becoming their last stand against abortion.

Given pharmacists can still refuse to dispense the morning after pill due to personal religious beliefs, to the best of my knowledge, would this change anything in relation to this?

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

Given pharmacists can still refuse to dispense the morning after pill due to personal religious beliefs, to the best of my knowledge, would this change anything in relation to this?

Yes. Anything that improves women's access to contraception is good. Removing the Church-decreed double standard in healthcare is still critical. Repealing the 8th was just the first step.