Honestly, if we were bold enough to assume Zep’s comments carried quantitative value: the value of his commentary would not be a positive value.
In simpler words for the slow ones who may be reading along: Zep’s comments either provide no value to conversation whatsoever, or they detract from the overall quality of an otherwise productive dialogue.
I really should spend the couple of minutes per day to start updating my log again, even if all I’ve been doing is really light (for me) kettlbell work and occasional trips to the basement barbell.
Well then it can’t be manslaughter either.
You sir, should run for congress.
Did the girl with the Ruth Bader Ginsberg shirt cry when the Nazis didn’t win? That’s neither here nor there, but we can’t and won’t let that stop us from standing up for what’s right. You can ride a horse across Nebraska, but that doesn’t matter to the single moms who are struggling on social media.
This campaign is about getting cash in people’s hands. Together is how we move forward. Together is how we make change. Humans may make it to Mars, but we also need to make it down I-95 without running out of heating oil back at home.
#twojar2029
Ginsberg was merely an ugly, middle-aged lady, at that time.
Enough fun with side-tracking, let’s keep the discussion on Roe v. Wade and related topics with well-intentioned posts from forum members.
Could you imagine? Laying there with your head through the hole as the sun comes up a d you have all that time while the quick release charges to contemplate your actions.
You my friend, are a truly innovative thinker.
You clearly haven’t heard about my wind-powered semi-auto guillotine idea…
Much more efficient when you attatch large blades onto the end of a wind turbine and have a feeding chute full of heads to lop off. I would have called it a ‘magazine’ but then California would cap the number of rounds it can hold at 9 
I had an idea to introduce a ticketing and bidding system to help fund it too, but then Big Daddy Cali would want to register it as “gambling”… this state ruins everything.
Right… So we are on the same page? Like I said, it should be a charge similar in sentencing to manslaughter.
In case you missed it, I clarified:
[quote=“Californiagrown, post:485, topic:277546, full:true”] I’d prefer there be a charge similar in severity to manslaughter or aggravated assault with a 15-20 year sentence or thereabouts… with reductions if there was no intent to harm anyone (eg drunk driver vs angry BF not wanting the pregnancy).
[/quote]
No, we’re definitely not on the same page. Im trying to understand your point of view.
So not manslaughter, but similar sentencing? Like in terms of time served for a conviction? Or with different degrees based on intent, recklessness and indifference?
Edit: posted at similar times.
Okay so pre 22 weeks a mother’s plans to keep or terminate wouldnt legally change the weight of the hypothetical manslaughter like charge.
Like said above, 20 yr max with lesser sentences for lacking intent. 1st degree is 20yrs for baby daddy trying to end the pregnancy, 3rd degree is 5 years for a DD who wrecks moms car, as a quick example.
Correct, no possible murder charge before 22 weeks.
Intent to keep or terminate the pregnancy would likely play into the judge sentencing high or low on the sentencing range for the charge. But the charge of aggravated 1 vs accidental 2/3 wouldn’t change based on moms intent.
See, this is the part i cant wrap my head around with this hypothetical. If we dont define the fetus before 22 weeks as a human/life/person, what does it matter my motivation for ending it’s existence? Whether i gut punch mom or side swipe her civic while im drunk, if its not a human baby then who cares? At that point its at worse assault and at best destruction of property.
Thanks for hanging in there and remaining civil. I know we wont agree on this, but i appreciate exploring other perspectives.
Because the fetus before 22 weeks still has potential to be human (or be a miscarriage or still birth) and that should be taken into account similar to how loss of future earnings is taken into in account (civil case I know) despite that money not yet being a certainty.
This may no be a thing in the US but in the UK we have a thing called “the egg shell rule” which basically means if your illegal act results in worse harm/ loss than it would normally because of factors the victim has (pregnancy, brittle bones etc.) which are unknown then tough luck you are responsible for the greater harm/ loss.
Do you not see a difference between:
First one is just a plain assault
Second one I have ended a potential life by accident by committing an assault
Last one I commit an assault with specific malice.
I can’t speak for @Californiagrown but I am sure his hypothetical idea is just to have a specific crime which gives the judge a range to sentence people accordingly. In my above example I don’t see it as unreasonable for the person assaulting a woman who is no pregnant and the person assaulting a woman pregnant (unknown to them) who loses a 11 month pregnancy to have the same sentence.
Absolutely I see the difference, if we’re talking about a human life.
I feel like we would go round in circles so ill attempt a new direction that does not centre around human life.
Legally speaking there is both a physical aspect of a crime (Criminal act) and a mental aspect (Mens Rea Latin for Criminal mind) and BOTH need to be present for a crime to be proven legally speaking (most of them anyways)
Do you not see a difference between:
There’s a difference and even though 2 and 3 are the same criminal act and have the same consequence 3 is worse due to my specific intent.
Perhaps if the suggested crime avoided the term ‘manslaughter’ or ‘murder’ and was termed something along the lines of ‘Non-consensual ending of pregnancy’ you would be more agreeable?
Regardless of when a fetus is considered human, deliberately depriving someone of the possibility of being a parent should be punished with some severity
But, if the baby is just another part of her body at that point - it should just be assault and battery. We already have laws for covering the intentional harm of someone’s body.
The entire argument is the baby is part of her body and not an individual life or separate from the mother’s body.
Abortion related:
Once again we see that Joe is the most powerful man in the USA. But it isn’t Joe Biden. It’s Joe Manchin!
Congress could save a lot of time to pass a bill. Just ask Joe Manchin how he is going to vote. That shouldn’t take long