posted
As a currently pregnant woman, I already perceive aspects of personhood in the fetus. This one is more active than the others, and will probably not like to be too constricted. But he likes his back rubbed. My husband has watched his movements through my tummy, and we've talked about these characteristics of this child. We have several ultrasound pictures of him, including a very cute face shot with chubby cheeks. The baby is named. My husband is already very attached to him, and is very protective of both of us. Our children are already in love with him.
So what if I were killed now? Do you really think our family would consider it only one death?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This whole thing strikes me as being very similar to the "victims right" law concerning pregnant mothers that was passed last year. I know that killing anyone is a horrible thing.....I really do....but to say that a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders is not right, not considering the fetus hasn't been born yet.
Those laws date back to before Roe v. Wade, Kwea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not talking about how individuals feel about it, I am talking about the legal aspect of the most current law passed regarding it.
If they are not born, then there can't be two murders....because until birth, legaly they don't exist as a person.
Dag, there were a lot of those laws before Roe vs. Wade, but they were not inforcable after it. Now there is another law, signed by Bush, that has redefined it for this generation...
And if you think you can convince me that it isn't an attempt to create a legal justification for outlawing abortion despite Roe vs. Wade, you are wrong. It is the first step anong the path of trying to award rights to unborn children..and if that happens, outlawing abortion is logicaly inevatible.
It can't be murder only if an outsider kills it, you know...it is either a person for all, or not a person at all. So by logical deduction, if a child is awarded rights before birth, how could that NOT interfere with a mothers rights to have an abortion?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, there were a lot of those laws before Roe vs. Wade, but they were not inforcable after it. Now there is another law, signed by Bush, that has redefined it for this generation...
Factually, you're just flat out wrong on the status of such laws. Several existed before Roe, and Roe had no effect on their enforcability or constitutionality. This isn't a matter of opinion.
quote:And if you think you can convince me that it isn't an attempt to create a legal justification for outlawing abortion despite Roe vs. Wade, you are wrong. It is the first step anong the path of trying to award rights to unborn children..and if that happens, outlawing abortion is logicaly inevatible.
I wouldn't attempt to convince you otherwise. Anything that highlights the unbelievable hypocrisy of the current sate of abortion jurisprudence is a good thing in my mind. And it forces those opposing the laws to speak much more baldly about what it is they are advocating.
quote:It can't be murder only if an outsider kills it, you know...it is either a person for all, or not a person at all. So by logical deduction, if a child is awarded rights before birth, how could that NOT interfere with a mothers rights to have an abortion?
As much as I agree with the sentiment, the law doesn't have to make pretty moral distinctions. Right now, in California and most other states, it is "murder only if an outsider kills it." Assuming, of course, that the mother didn't want them to and the person doing the killing didn't have a medical license.
posted
I saw a site that listed those states last night, but it was 3 am and I didn't have the energy to look into it more..sorry about that.
My original point was this (although I lost sight of it in my exhaustion last night..: )
Two main points.
1) I don't like the federal government doing this, as the federal government is who decided Roe vs, Wade. The states can do what they like, although I don't like that either, but to me that doesn't concern me as much.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with creating a more serious class of murder classification for these sorts of crimes. I just don't see how we can charge someone with another murder when we also say that they aren't a person until they are born.
2) Dag, at least you are honest in your support for this law..Bush, while being against abortion, has denied that this new federal law is an attempt to create a legal basis for overturning Roe vs Wade.
I may not be President, but I am not stupid (except at 3 am, at times.. ). If I can see the probable ramifications of this law, how can anyone miss them...or try to deny them?
quote:Also, I don't see anything wrong with creating a more serious class of murder classification for these sorts of crimes. I just don't see how we can charge someone with another murder when we also say that they aren't a person until they are born.
Actually, this is quite easy from a legal point of view, because "murder" has been redefined several times, and has no inherent meaning outside the statutes and interpreting cases (there being no more common law of crime). From a legal point of view, the dichotomy isn't very unusual.
From a moral point of view, we have a serious conflict of definitions going on.
it should be noted that the California law was created in such a way as to guarantee the legal right to abortion. The hypocrisy is built right into the law itself.
Edit:
quote:I don't like the federal government doing this, as the federal government is who decided Roe vs, Wade.
Not sure if you realize this, but this law would apply only to federal crimes, which is very limited circumstance. It's not like this is redefining the definition to be used in 99% of crimes.
I know this doesn't change your problem with the bill, but it helps put everything in context.
quote:And, to follow up on what Shan posted, let's be clear on what the Kansas reporting procedures are. I'm not saying Shan's wrong, let's just have the actual information in front of us, so we understand the issues thoroughly.
There might be additional relevant information, too. That is, depending on the state, there may be other characteristics of the circumstance which take precedence under law. For example, in Wisconsin, things work a little differently for mandatory reporting if the child is an emancipated minor.
Emancipation (as far as I know) is generally considered a de re nata state -- that is, it is a characteristic which arises out of the situation itself, not as per decree from above. So when a judgment of emancipation is entered by the court, it is as an acknowledgement of a condition that already exists, not the granting of a condition by fiat. The "mature minor" precedent evolved in specific recognition of this. [I note this as an issue most relevant to the question of ethical obligation, although it may impact on legal obligation as well.]
How this factors into mandatory reporting makes the question more murky than it may appear from a cursory assessment. I have never been involved in a case where I suspected abuse (in the colloquial or non-colloquial sense) of a minor who purported to be acting as emancipated or as a mature minor. If I were in that situation, I'd for sure be talking to the head of our Ethics Committee for some advice.
All this is just to say that there might be additional relevant (even superceding) legislation. I am so glad I am not a lawyer. Couldn't keep it all straight for the life of me.
posted
More on "Kansas Statutes: Article 35.-Sex Offenses; Article 36.-Crimes Affecting Family Relationships And Children" can be found here.
Also of note is that mandatory reporting involves cases where the provider has "reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of physical, mental, or emotional abuse or neglect, or sexual abuse; When they know of the death of a child." The legal interpretation of "injury" may be affected by whether or not a teenage is a "mature" or "emancipated" minor, and thus whether or not they are able to give consent.
Again, I'm not arguing for people to have sex with kids or that kids should be having sex with each other. Good heavens! I just think it's probably worth digging a little deeper to understand why those mandatory reporters may not have reported sexual abuse in the cases of pregnant teens. On the other hand, as ElJay notes, some or all of these cases may have been reported to child protective services.
I sure hope the right thing was done in each individual case. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, at least you are honest in your support for this law.
I've been thinking about this more. It's not that I support this law so it will create a legal basis to overturn Roe v. Wade - it won't, and Bush knows this, because a Congressional law can't override a SCOTUS constitutional finding.
I support this law for the same reason I support banning abortion - both positions are based on the same exact moral principles. I also like the debate that surrounds this law, because it requires dealing with the issue I think is controlling, namely the legal status of the unborn child.
The question of when personhood begins does not depend on whether or not abortion should be legal. It's an antecedent question.
posted
I can understand why people would say that releasing medical records of minors would be a good thing if it helped stopped abuse of those minors. I can also understand releasing medical records to prove that doctors are violating state laws.
But, more than anything else, the clinics responsiblity is to the medical well being of their patients. I volunteer at a Planned Parenthood out here, and most of the people I deal with are kids. Most of them are looking for contraceptives, but some of them have come in for abortions. Now, dealing with giggling 13 year old girls, who nonchalantly tell you exactly what type of birth control they want and why, and how the others they have tried affect them, is disconcerting. I dont like the fact that these ditzy, childlike little girls are having sex. I find it sad, and it steals a little bit from my faith in humanity. But, I am glad that they are making themselves knowledgeable about how NOT to get pregnant. And every single one of those kids would decide to never come back in, no matter the reason, if they knew their records were in any danger of becoming public knowledge. I cant support anything that would facilitate that happening. Because most of these kids have nowhere else to go.
Now, this AG, Phil Kline, has a history of fighting abortion in Kansas. He tried to reinterpert a law recently requiring clinics to report any sexual activity in children under 16, regardless of whether there were any signs of abuse. link to article
edit: And this artical, in the NYT, is why I talk about his anti-abortion history. NYT
I find his motivations suspect now, because of the record he has concerning abortion, and privacy. I would want to see more info about what exactly was being subpoenad', and what would be done with the information.
quote:The question of when personhood begins does not depend on whether or not abortion should be legal. It's an antecedent question.
Absolutely.
Deciding on the former would not necessarily decide the latter, though. So, for example, someone may clearly be a person with a right to life without thereby securing everything he or she needs to exercise that right -- e.g., your right to life does not legally entail my granting you one of my kidneys, even if it is the only thing in the world which will keep you alive.
Of course, there is so much more to the story. Parents and children have different relationships than you and I, and consent to one sort of outcome may imply consent to another. But I think it is much murkier than it may seem. And that's just the law, which (IMHO) is the very soul of clarity when compared to the general ethics of the matter.
I don't have kids. I have gone to great pains throughout my life not to get pregnant. At times this meant abstinance, at other times it meant birth control practices of one sort or another. Upon reflection, this was probably one of the wisest choices of my life. I haven't been (nor am I now) ready to be a parent. I do have the greatest respect for those who are more suited than I and those who do the job well.
quote:Deciding on the former would not necessarily decide the latter, though. So, for example, someone may clearly be a person with a right to life without thereby securing everything he or she needs to exercise that right -- e.g., your right to life does not legally entail my granting you one of my kidneys, even if it is the only thing in the world which will keep you alive.
I agree. Naturally, I think it's the dispositive factor. But the important thing is to answer this question first, or have a moral reasoning that makes the answer irrelevant, such as your kidney analysis.* I've heard people complain about the movie "Look Who's Talking" as pro-life propaganda because Mikey talks in the womb.
Dagonee *Which I'm not writing my 3-page analysis on .
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People can be so silly. It is frustrating to see this when the debate is about something much more important than a pop comedy.
You and I agree on many things, Dag. Most particularly on the importance of taking serious things seriously and doing them due justice.
That's so cool. I have a lot of respect for you.
[Hey, just curious -- are you an INTP or INTJ? I bounce between the two, as does dkw. Dave is INTJ. I was rereading Please Understand Me this weekend, and it underscored for me just how irritating my habits and traits can be to someone of a different temperament. Dave and I agreed that we were both lucky eventually to find spouses with whom we meshed. Fervently agreed. Nobody else could stand us.]
posted
Edited as above. Oh, yeah, that's totally why I get you so well.
I'm currently slanted toward INTP, but I'm working on drawing projects to closure and implementing my ideas instead of sticking with abstract theory. Good therapy. I need to cultivate my J aspects.
posted
Dag, I was aware of that...that eh federal law was more limited in scope.
I do think that the law will become the basis for a SCOTUS challenge to Roe vs Wade though, and that these laws will be used to argue that federal law already reconizes a fetuses rights.
I know that a law can't override a SCOTUS ruling, but I do think that a law can be a basis for a challenge all the way to the SCOTUS...right?
posted
Not really. The law would be possibly be cited in the briefs, but the CA law and its ilk are much more likely to be cited as proof of the compelling state interest in the life of the unborn child. But it wouldn't be the basis for any such challenge - that will be a state law that violates Casey (which is actually controlling now, not Roe), and the suit will be raised by a pro-choice advocacy group.
quote: INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them.
Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.
INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.
A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves. The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.
Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP's conscious thought. This fascination for logical wholes and their inner workings is often expressed in a detachment from the environment, a concentration where time is forgotten and extraneous stimuli are held at bay. Accomplishing a task or goal with this knowledge is secondary.
"Annoying" and carrying a "haunting sense of impending failure." Oh, yeah. Sweet bijimmeny, that's me to a "t."
[And just for clarity, let me say that I don't think other people in this thread are not taking this matter seriously. It looks to me to be an incredibly sensible and forthright discussion all around.
Sometimes I do like to make fun of how I tend to spiral off and natter away on some obsessive little tangent and call it "a matter of clarity." (ha, ha) More like obsessive chewing of the cud. Excuse me while I go regurgitate something I've said before and drone on and on and on about it.
I so need other people to keep me on track. INTJs do that nicely, I've found. ]
quote: Now, dealing with giggling 13 year old girls, who nonchalantly tell you exactly what type of birth control they want and why, and how the others they have tried affect them, is disconcerting.
My last boyfriend had a 15 year old daughter. On her 15th birthday, in fact, she implied to me that she was sexually active, in casual conversation.
I considered it my responsibility to make sure her dad knew, and he did. He wasn't happy about it, but her mom had primary custody at the time, and although he had expressed his concerns to her, there wasn't really anything he could do to stop it.
Like CT, I don't think being a parent is for me, and I have gone to some pretty drastic measures in my life to ensure that it doesn't happen. So it was a little surreal when I found myself a little later, at 30, acting as a mother figure to a 15 year old girl describing to me the symptoms of a UTI, which had been causing her much pain and discomfort for at least three days. Her dad knew about the symptoms, but didn't know what they signified or how serious it could be.
It was a Sunday evening, and I got her some OTC medicine to control the symptoms until Monday, and told her dad that she needed to go to the doctor on Monday, period. Due to scheduling issues, I actually ended up taking her to the doctor over lunch the next day, and we had just barely caught it in time. The doctor said she was probably less than 24 hours away from a kidney infection.
In the process we talked about sex and birth control and what can cause UTIs and what you can do to avoid them. Like I said, surreal.
It absolutly broke my heart that this strong, smart, enthusiastic 15 year old girl was sexually active. And there was absolutly nothing I could do about it.
I very much hope that she gets through her teen years without having to make a decision about abortion.
Added: Her boyfriend was less than a year older than her. If she had been having sex with an 18 or so year old, I would have tried my damnedest to get her to stop and break off the relationship. If she had been dating someone over 21, I might have quietly talked to him and suggested if he didn't take his skanky ass elsewhere I'd be talking to the police. And if he didn't, I probably would have done so.
quote:And just for clarity, let me say that I don't think other people in this thread are not taking this matter seriously. It looks to me to be an incredibly sensible and forthright discussion all around.
I agree.
And ElJay, that's just a sad story. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is, but it's the only sad story I could tell about this girl. She is a brightly-burning flame... yes, I think she should have waited to start having sex, but barring that I think she went about it in the best way possible. She was in an exclusive relationship, they had been together for almost a year before they started, they talked about it beforehand, and she started on the depo-provo (sp?) shot a month prior. She told me about her first experience, and unlike most women I know who became sexually active young it was not painful or scary for her. According to her, it was a first for the boyfriend, too, but they were still using condoms, which I strongly encouraged.
I tried to be supportive of her without being supportive of her activity, and to make sure that if she was going to keep doing it she stayed as safe and as smart as possible about it. And realized the potential consequences, and how they could screw up all the plans she had for the rest of her life. And when things ended for her dad and I, I made sure she knew that she could contact me if she ever felt she needed to, for any reason. All I could do.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, CT, you're quite correct - I was reflecting on the general rule of thumb for Wa. state mandatory reporting - thanks.
I didn't think it was significantly different from other states, so I just figured Belle's post and comments were adding additional valuable information as it pertained to Kansas.
Certainly didn't think I had all the scoop - and certainly sorry if Belle or anyone else took that information in a way that somehow diminished the discussion.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). If I can see the probable ramifications of this law, how can anyone miss them...or try to deny them?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Couldn't keep it all straight for the life of me.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
According to her, it was a first for the boyfriend, too, but they were still using condoms, which I strongly encouraged. ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
