@Lawdeedaw he's a lot more rude and blunt than me, and I'm definitely a million times more delicate when talking about abortion, but the actual core of what he was trying to say, I agree with.

To strip away the rudeness and hyperbole, what he said about abortion is "life" is all over the place, and we don't mind killing bacteria, insects, or even large mammals without even batting an eye. We don't seem to have any concern about killing sperm or eggs, despite their "potential" to become people either. Why should it change instantly once they're combined? It's still just a potential person and not an actual person for at least some period of time after conception.

The other point he made about abortion is that there's more to the question to consider beyond what the foetus is, there's also the consideration of what "banning abortion" would mean -- the state forcing women to carry to term pregnancies against their will. Even if you decide that's morally necessary, there's a huge array of practical implications that follow from that that the pro-life side really just handwaves away as if they're not cogent.

And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it...

But mostly what I meant by "I agree with every word" was the overall argument about how this whole thing about Ron Paul is a cult. Ron Paul isn't some savior, he's just a guy. Worse, he's a politician. Worse still, he's a Texas Republican. There's some things he says liberals might like, but most of his ideology a screaming horror of bugfuck insanity that we definitely don't want to help him implement.

As for this:

[I]f your party is arguing about stupid bullshit with itself other while the other party leads this country to its demise, are not the “intellectuals” the dumber group because the should know better?

This is a topic of conversation that comes up often on the left.

But the problem is, we then argue about what we should unify around. Me, I say hash our divisions out in Democratic primaries, then stand foursquare behind the Democrat, no matter who he or she might be. Others bitch and whine and moan about the insufficiency of Democrats and argue that we should be constantly attacking Democrats, in order to try to send a message to them (and this will somehow sway lots of people to vote Democratic because something something Overton Window).

So even on this, we're divided.

Oh, and you wanna be careful with anti-intellectual ideas like "if you're so smart, why can't you all just stop thinking for yourselves and unite behind a misguided idea like those unthinking zombies on the right?"

One doesn't have to be smart to drown out everyone else in a conversation, you just need to be louder and completely unselfconscious about telling people comforting lies.

And basically the angry atheist is saying that my wife is absolutely ape-shit crazy for considering he miscarriage the loss of a child... I mean, it was just a few cells so what's her problem? Yeah--fuck him. Too damn smart when he has an easy target (Religion) but to god damned stupid to listen to what his own words mean.

(Sorry, I just thought of the miscarriage suddenly. That's why I insert it. Yeah, he can go fuck himself. And before anyone says, "Well, that's not what he is saying," unfortunately he did say it--just not outright.)

@bcglorf

See what @gwiz665 said. A fetus is human, but it is not a human being (yet). It's a hugely important distinction. The fetus before the 2nd trimester hasn't developed a nervous system well enough to feel pain, nor is the brain developed enough for consciousness. That's the distinction. A 2-month old can both feel pain and is conscious and therefore is a human being. A fetus is not, in my opinion.

The problem of course is that a fetus will become a human being (most likely--miscarriage is still possible) without intervention. So terminating a fetus is, in my opinion, immoral. But far less immoral than killing a conscious human being capable of feeling pain. And far less immoral than forcing a woman to bear the economic, medical, social, and psychological costs of bearing an unwanted child.

Okay this was hard to watch, but I risked the brain damage so I could comment on the stupidity.

People need to stop being so fucking gullible, this story is ridiculous. The kid offers nothing that isn't vague and expected. Mom talking on the phone to a friend, dad in a little room in the hospital praying. His descriptions of God and Jesus are classic little kid tall tales. And I'm sure he'd overheard his parents talking about the miscarriage at some point. This is all the kind of crap little kids go through, they don't yet have the intellectual capacity to understand what's going on, its why the believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, and why they think they've invented words and things that have been around for ages. Luckily for most of us we have parents that explain these things to us, rather than feed and profit off our delusions as in this case.

On another note I'd like say Gretchen herself is evidence God exists, because she looks like she's been pulled from his, stupid christian lady barbie wanna be, clone stamp in photoshop.

>> ^Shepppard:

Serious upvote.
My cousin and his wife recently suffered a miscarriage of their first child, everything about it was horrible.
To start things off, she gets migranes, seriously bad ones. And the medication she was taking needed to stop if she wanted to have a child, so, she did.
After a few months (remember, months, and she suffered severe migranes) they finally were able to conceive, and they were going to announce it at my cousins wedding. (she would have been about 5 months pregnant at that point, so about 8 months of no medication, and morning sickness, etc.)
The day of one of my cousins wedding, none of that family (aunt, uncle, coussin & wife) showed up. Nobody knew why (We didn't know they were trying for a baby at this point) but around noon, someone finally got word of what was up.
Apparently Beth had suffered a miscarriage, for a few days she had noticed the baby wasn't kicking, and found out the day before the wedding that, sure enough, the baby was lost.
She had to wait 3 days before she could get to an abortion clinic to have it removed, or she would've had to wait longer in a hospital.
And to think of all the pain and suffering she had already been through, coupled with the trauma of losing her first child, and having to walk into one of those clinics, tears most likely streaming down her face, and having to deal with people like those two women?
My heart breaks for her. I can't honestly believe people would do that and think they're solving anything.


This is the reason why we need *promotepost or *qualitypost. (Maybe transfer a power-point for recognition, max of one per comment, etc...)

It's a sad story, but it shows that these stories are out there. I have a lot of problems with what basically is temper-tantrum rallies/protests. The only protests that should be in anger are when a right is denied by the government. Write your Senator or Congressman for the other stuff. (This would force them to think out their ideas when it's penned on paper.)

Serious upvote.

My cousin and his wife recently suffered a miscarriage of their first child, everything about it was horrible.

To start things off, she gets migranes, seriously bad ones. And the medication she was taking needed to stop if she wanted to have a child, so, she did.

After a few months (remember, months, and she suffered severe migranes) they finally were able to conceive, and they were going to announce it at my cousins wedding. (she would have been about 5 months pregnant at that point, so about 8 months of no medication, and morning sickness, etc.)

The day of one of my cousins wedding, none of that family (aunt, uncle, coussin & wife) showed up. Nobody knew why (We didn't know they were trying for a baby at this point) but around noon, someone finally got word of what was up.

Apparently Beth had suffered a miscarriage, for a few days she had noticed the baby wasn't kicking, and found out the day before the wedding that, sure enough, the baby was lost.

She had to wait 3 days before she could get to an abortion clinic to have it removed, or she would've had to wait longer in a hospital.

And to think of all the pain and suffering she had already been through, coupled with the trauma of losing her first child, and having to walk into one of those clinics, tears most likely streaming down her face, and having to deal with people like those two women?

My heart breaks for her. I can't honestly believe people would do that and think they're solving anything.

Wow... Just fucking wow...


A few points:

The video's description incorrectly notes the date. An extremely minor point, but a factual one nonetheless.

I fully believe that this sentence is, as the defense attorney alluded to, a complete miscarriage of justice. I fully believe that the defendant should have been offered a plea deal. Like the judge, I can not understand why plea deals are offered to some but not others. In this case, it certainly seems warranted.

Someone mentioned that the judge doesn't give a shit, but I wouldn't expect the judge to give a shit. The judge is on the bench to act as an impartial mediator between the prosecution, defense and presumably impartial jury. The judge may very well feel for this defendant, as well as others he has had to impose similar sentences upon. It would not surprise me if this judge (as well as others in the state of Nevada) undergo some form of therapy, be it expensive psychiatry or heavy drinking or primal screaming. I feel for the judge who imposes such an unwarranted sentence and is not left with a scar upon their psyche.

For those America-bashers that are going to use this as another example of how fucked-up the United States of America is (and have attempted already), I say this:
Nevada is just one state out of fifty that comprise this nation.
The United States Constitution grants rights and powers to the individual states in matters where the values and moral compass differs from region to region due to differences in background, ethnicity and national origin.
Nevada was originally settled by Mormons, which are a somewhat extreme sect of Christianity. Some believe the Mormon church to be a cult. It is widely known that the church was founded by a person with a criminal background and that the church as a whole engages in some suspect practices.
That said, Mormons chose to impose their morality upon others within the states they helped found, specifically Utah and Nevada, but also other states to a lesser extent.

The moral standards of Mormons are not considered by sensible-thinking people as reasonable. However, it is also the basis for the laws of the state of Nevada, like it or not. The law and its associated sentences has been challenged for constitutionality and the challenge has failed. I suspect the failure of previous challenges is running up against the same old Mormon guard that still pervades the state legislature, but I have no evidence of this.
Regardless, the draconian punishment that is set in law in the state of Nevada is one glaring (and pretty fucked-up) example of how one group's morality is imposed on those around them through legislative process.
Good or bad, it is how our system of government works.

Welcome to the Republic.



Yes, I wholly get the irony of Mormons imposing a life sentence for this sort of sexual misconduct while they turn a blind eye to polygamy and incestual relations.
However, that is not the subject of this debate, however poignant that irony may be.

She shouldn't have started crying. Judges don't go for feelings, they go for argument.

Obviously, it's an egregious miscarriage of justice and it should obviously have been reduced - I mean, this is not forced sex... it's touching a breast. Grow the fuck up, America.

But it is a dilemma when you think about it. If you are going to have laws against the possession of child pornography, you almost have to rely on "expert" guesses at age. Since the vast majority of kids appearing in actual CP could never be tracked down. In doing so you risk this kind of horrible miscarriage of justice. If you don't do it, CP laws become nearly unenforceable.

Making it even more confusing is the fact that skinny petite girls like that may not even have even hit puberty by the age of 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_puberty#Timing_of_the_onset_of_puberty

And it doesn't help that she was almost certainly chosen for her underdeveloped body, then dressed up to make her look as child-like as possible.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Mandatory sentencing is a mockery to justice and a result of the futile drug war here in the US. Accidental death should never carry a life sentence or be a capital offense.


And here we finally find something we agree on!

Mandatory sentencing, and the "zero-tolerance laws" are horrifically flawed attempts by politicians to make sure people know they're "taking action against crime". There's no evidence that they actually help, and plenty of examples where they've caused clear miscarriages of justice.

thanks dude!

so many questions... like...
what classifies as a "reckless miscarriage" and how is this law even enforcable? whats the punishment?


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Thought you might enjoy this Utah themed photoshop feature at SomethingAwful: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/utah-reckless-miscarriage.php?page=1

Thought you might enjoy this Utah themed photoshop feature at SomethingAwful: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/utah-reckless-miscarriage.php?page=1

I can see why people say that the woman got what she deserved, but I can't approve of the police officer's actions here. It doesn't look to me as though he acted out of self-defence, but of anger. His slap is one of revenge or punishment, which it is most definitely not a police officer's duty to administer. He should have the training to deal with situations like this without resorting to violence. I'm not saying that police officers should just stand there and take it, but there are steps they can take to prevent attacks without resorting to violence of their own, espeically in low-danger situations like this one: given his size and training I would've thought this officer could have put handcuffs on her very easily if he wanted to protect himself from another slap.

Of course I'm not saying that she should just get away with slapping police officers, but the officer's duty after the slap should have been to arrest her for it, not administer justice on his own behalf.

There's a reason why police officers are not permitted to dispense summary punishments at the scene like this, Raverman. A lapse in judgement might result in an innocent person being slapped, and that would be a miscarriage of justice equivalent to sending someone to prison for a crime they didn't commit - in the same way you can't give someone back the time they spent in prison if they are later found innocent, you can't undo the slap if evidence other than the police officer's assessment of the 'crime' (say, CCTV) proves the 'offender' innocent. And that is why we spend time and money putting people through the legal procedure to determine guilt or innocence before we punish them, it's not perfect even then, but it would be worse if we had police officers slapping everyone they see dropping litter or having an argument.

>> ^westy:
First time I ever witnessed a Miscarriage.


I think you now have one of the most upvoted comment, and the most downvoted comment on the site.

▲ 63 ▼

vs.

▲ -68 ▼

Quite an achievement! 5 more votes and you've balanced the scales, and all is forgotten

>> ^westy:
First time I ever witnessed a Miscarriage.


Wow dude, you sure make up sometimes for the crap you usually post... brilliant!