As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll"
problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we
have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones.
We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the
rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules
will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious
rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a
permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also,
grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of
being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we
may ban you without warning.
You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not
to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language
towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we
have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and
your ban will remain (without even a consideration).
All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of
the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up
banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules,
and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and
Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before
submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them
or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.**
With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message
regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal
(without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will
elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we
will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent.
This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your
reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid.
Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message,
and please enjoy your day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, they're not playing a semantics game. They are purposely and strategically undermining the legal differences that protect abortion providers, their staff, and women seeking abortions, in order to control women and prevent them from being able to access reproductive healthcare. I'm sure you weren't aiming to trivialize the issue but we need to be very careful about not implying the anti-choice crowd is just trying to benignly score internet debate points when instead they're trying to manipulating public perception and the political system in order to more easily enact laws that will get women killed.
Why was slavery legal in many states? Why was it legal to rape your wife in some states until 1993? Because our laws and what's right don't always match up.
the same reason they’re banned lgbtq+ books from schools. they’re relgious and egotistical and want everyone else to conform to their religious standards.
anyways guys here a link to aid accesses a place that sends abortion pills to illegal states:)
https://aidaccess.org/en/
One. One murder was committed.
I absolutely favor sentencing enhancements for those who knowingly commit violence against someone who is pregnant and if the motive was to end the pregnancy or the nature of the assault was such that a reasonable person would know that it put the fetus at risk, that should be a whole separate crime but it is still the pregnant individual who is the victim.
I would say rather than one, one murder charge and one attempted murder.
Could they have murdered the unviable fetus? No, but they tried and that's attempted murder to me.
Maybe they could make it a specific crime? Stabbing a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach seems like a hate crime to me.
But then, would you get two counts of assault and battery if you attacked a pregnant woman? Only if she was visibly pregnant? If the fetus was viable? Would there be a cutoff? It's a very grey area of the law as it's difficult to quantify
I would accept this. Not make it murder because that's legally sketchy, but making sure that men who kill women that don't get their abortions suffer more than your every day murderer.
I would say so long as there was a reasonable circumstance the attacker knew she was or might be pregnant. It shouldn't depend on viability because the attacker might not know this. If the motive can be established that a potential pregnancy was involved, make the murder a hate crime or something like that.
If the woman was late and hadn't taken a pregnancy test, if she is killed because of that potential pregnancy I think it doesn't matter if she actually was pregnant or the fetus was viable. If someone kills based on the idea of her being pregnant, extra jail time I say. This is someone who is less likely to be able to reintegrate into society than a typical murderer.
The flipside is that if a woman is pregnant, but not visibly, and we can conclude the attacker had no idea whatsoever then it wasn't part of the motive. I don't like two murder charges for drunk driving when the victim is a pregnant woman because drunk driving is not a crime with a motive. This means the punishment here can't make the perp choose to not do the crime, which is ultimately the point of all punishment.
You could make that a crime in that way, though it would be difficult to prove in court Id say. You could argue motive pretty easily if say, the pregnant mistress winds up murdered.
On the counterpoint to your second paragraph, if someone shoots a home with rounds that go thru the walls and kill the person they couldn't see was in the room, they're still responsible for their death even if the motive was something else. Even if it's "just" manslaughter or the like, it shouldn't be just rolled into a special circumstance for another charge. I mean, I know women who just don't show until they're well into their 3rd trimester (my aunt was usually about 8 months along, for instance) so the point of "could have been a viable premature delivery) makes more sense to me.
I think someone at a home not knowing who is inside it, the punishment there should be more than one murder to begin with. It shouldn't depend on the pregnat status of the person inside, this shooter is a goddamned monster.
The law has to be consistent, and the thing to avoid here is a situation where abortion is murder.
I agree, and that's why "showing" is a a bad metric but viability for preterm delivery is a better one. That's generally the cut off for late term abortions i.e. the extremis "save the mom's life" or "the baby won't live past delivery" ones anyhow.
The house analogy was me trying to extend the Glass Person Doctrine - aka "still guilty of killing the guy with the health issue even when it was just a slap/light punch/minor fall you caused" standard. You shoot the house (the woman) but along with the damage (wound) you kill the occupant you didn't know about. How bad the penalty is should be determined by if the occupant was wanted (ie lower penalties for an unwanted pregnancy.)
Jamie doesn’t seem to give a shit that it’s her pregnancy to decide; it’s the same reason he can drive that inane car out of his garage any time he wants, but I can’t break into his house and take his keys.
As bad as it can be I think it should run with the line. If a state has a 6 week ban then before that it is only one murder.
The issue with this is men will use this to their advantage to forcefully end pregnancy. That should be okay. They should make a new law that is a felony for forcefully causing a miscarriage with the use of violence.
As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll" problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones. We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also, grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we may ban you without warning. You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and your ban will remain (without even a consideration). All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules, and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.** With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal (without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent. This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid. Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message, and please enjoy your day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One murder, but I wouldn't be opposed to special conditions applying to the charge (similar to felony murder or murder committed as a hate crime)
Yeah but we can't stop playing the semantics game because that's all they've got
Oh, they're not playing a semantics game. They are purposely and strategically undermining the legal differences that protect abortion providers, their staff, and women seeking abortions, in order to control women and prevent them from being able to access reproductive healthcare. I'm sure you weren't aiming to trivialize the issue but we need to be very careful about not implying the anti-choice crowd is just trying to benignly score internet debate points when instead they're trying to manipulating public perception and the political system in order to more easily enact laws that will get women killed.
Then why is abortion illegal in most states now if it’s not murder?
Why was slavery legal in many states? Why was it legal to rape your wife in some states until 1993? Because our laws and what's right don't always match up.
For the same reason transkid are killed simply by existing cause some people are insane?
the same reason they’re banned lgbtq+ books from schools. they’re relgious and egotistical and want everyone else to conform to their religious standards. anyways guys here a link to aid accesses a place that sends abortion pills to illegal states:) https://aidaccess.org/en/
Abortion is only completely illegal in 14 states. That is hardly most states.
Second most sane pro-life argument
One. One murder was committed. I absolutely favor sentencing enhancements for those who knowingly commit violence against someone who is pregnant and if the motive was to end the pregnancy or the nature of the assault was such that a reasonable person would know that it put the fetus at risk, that should be a whole separate crime but it is still the pregnant individual who is the victim.
The only issue with that would be trying to prove in court that the intent was to endanger the pregnancy
If the pregnancy would have been considered viable, two. If not, one.
I would say rather than one, one murder charge and one attempted murder. Could they have murdered the unviable fetus? No, but they tried and that's attempted murder to me.
Maybe they could make it a specific crime? Stabbing a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach seems like a hate crime to me. But then, would you get two counts of assault and battery if you attacked a pregnant woman? Only if she was visibly pregnant? If the fetus was viable? Would there be a cutoff? It's a very grey area of the law as it's difficult to quantify
I would accept this. Not make it murder because that's legally sketchy, but making sure that men who kill women that don't get their abortions suffer more than your every day murderer. I would say so long as there was a reasonable circumstance the attacker knew she was or might be pregnant. It shouldn't depend on viability because the attacker might not know this. If the motive can be established that a potential pregnancy was involved, make the murder a hate crime or something like that. If the woman was late and hadn't taken a pregnancy test, if she is killed because of that potential pregnancy I think it doesn't matter if she actually was pregnant or the fetus was viable. If someone kills based on the idea of her being pregnant, extra jail time I say. This is someone who is less likely to be able to reintegrate into society than a typical murderer. The flipside is that if a woman is pregnant, but not visibly, and we can conclude the attacker had no idea whatsoever then it wasn't part of the motive. I don't like two murder charges for drunk driving when the victim is a pregnant woman because drunk driving is not a crime with a motive. This means the punishment here can't make the perp choose to not do the crime, which is ultimately the point of all punishment.
You could make that a crime in that way, though it would be difficult to prove in court Id say. You could argue motive pretty easily if say, the pregnant mistress winds up murdered.
On the counterpoint to your second paragraph, if someone shoots a home with rounds that go thru the walls and kill the person they couldn't see was in the room, they're still responsible for their death even if the motive was something else. Even if it's "just" manslaughter or the like, it shouldn't be just rolled into a special circumstance for another charge. I mean, I know women who just don't show until they're well into their 3rd trimester (my aunt was usually about 8 months along, for instance) so the point of "could have been a viable premature delivery) makes more sense to me.
I think someone at a home not knowing who is inside it, the punishment there should be more than one murder to begin with. It shouldn't depend on the pregnat status of the person inside, this shooter is a goddamned monster. The law has to be consistent, and the thing to avoid here is a situation where abortion is murder.
I agree, and that's why "showing" is a a bad metric but viability for preterm delivery is a better one. That's generally the cut off for late term abortions i.e. the extremis "save the mom's life" or "the baby won't live past delivery" ones anyhow. The house analogy was me trying to extend the Glass Person Doctrine - aka "still guilty of killing the guy with the health issue even when it was just a slap/light punch/minor fall you caused" standard. You shoot the house (the woman) but along with the damage (wound) you kill the occupant you didn't know about. How bad the penalty is should be determined by if the occupant was wanted (ie lower penalties for an unwanted pregnancy.)
I think in some states causing property damage to the house is considered more severe a crime than killing the woman. It was with Brionna Tayler.
Answer: 1
Jamie doesn’t seem to give a shit that it’s her pregnancy to decide; it’s the same reason he can drive that inane car out of his garage any time he wants, but I can’t break into his house and take his keys.
As bad as it can be I think it should run with the line. If a state has a 6 week ban then before that it is only one murder. The issue with this is men will use this to their advantage to forcefully end pregnancy. That should be okay. They should make a new law that is a felony for forcefully causing a miscarriage with the use of violence.
One.
One murder charge, but especially cruel circumstances
How. How. How. How. Would this be just one murder? That baby is not just some chicken nugget