Utah: Making miscarriages a crime?

Utah lawmakers have passed a bill that would make intentional or 'reckless' miscarriages punishable by life in prison

Just weeks after entertaining a plan to save money by making 12th grade optional, lawmakers in the Beehive State are again provoking national controversy. Under a bill that has passed the legislature and awaits signature by the governor, miscarriages that result from an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" would be treated as illegal abortions, punishable by life in prison. As a response to a single incident in which a woman allegedly paid a man to beat her and induce a miscarriage, has Utah gone too far?

Full article on here

Seriously? I dont know what to say about this.
If on the wrong forum, I'm sorry. I also searched and found nothing so if there is a thread then my bad.

Anyway. What in the world Utah? Sure, I agree that it's bad if people get beaten up just to lose the kid but come on, making a vague law that throws a lady to a prison for life if she falls down some stairs or is "reckless", is this really what one could call "land of the free"? (I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm only stating my opinion)

When is life---life? If someone shot your pregnant wife in the stomach in her 8 month would it be murder if the baby died? something to think about sometimes gray really is not that gray if you get my drift.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Utah !! isn't that Mormon country ???


So polygamy is still allowed while reckless mothers go to jail for life ??


If you ask me these things are closely related, ... I wonder how many young girls get knocked up by these older " husbands" and are so bitter about it they try to lose their pregnancy.

and what is their solution ?? instead of treating the root of this problem they blame the girls.

barbarians.

No Time Machine !!!! No Problem !!! Travel to Utah to see 70 years in the past kids !!! Hooooray !!

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Well, if I had a wife who was 8months pregnant and someone shot her "terminating" the baby, I would be mad as hell and In my eyes the one who shot her is a murderer.
I'd say life "is" life at that point when it can either survive or feel.
I'm pretty sure 8month old baby can survive if given the right surroundings.
I'd also say that everyone is free to have their own opinion in that matter.
I'm pretty sure everyone would agree on the fact that shooting pregnant ladies in the stomach even if not viewed as murder is about as bad as murder. Note, you shoot a pregnant lady and it could be 2 lives with one bullet!

It sounds as if they're attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade by using semantics. In regards to the story the article cites, imagine how bad it must be for a woman to resort to that level instead of going to a doctor to have an abortion for fear of reprisal, ridicule, or what have you.

It's not against the law to have an abortion, but the taboo associated with it given by fundamentalists is almost as bad as illegality.

To throw my stance in, anything beyond the beginning of the third term might as well be murder. If it's unlikely the mother or child would survive or the child is sure to die, I would recommend an abortion over the psychological effects of birthing a corpse or killing yourself.

Wow....the quality in ATS's ability to cut through the muck and get to the answers is falling rapidly.

If you were to actually go to the law..which is HERE you would understand what the context of the sensational "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" quote is about.

This isn't to circumvent Roe v. Wade as right there in the law it states, and I quote;

64(b) There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn
65 child caused by an abortion, as defined in Section 76-7-301 .

So no woman is going to be charged with negligent homicide if they receive an abortion.

Even from the title, they are clearing the law so it CANNOT be twisted by those that wish to try and nail a woman to the cross if they receive an abortion

The title of the law is

This bill amends provisions of the Utah Criminal Code to describe the difference
14 between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn child and to remove prohibitions
15 against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or committing criminal
16 homicide of an unborn child.

I really love this leading and unfounded comment in the article "Under the terms of this law, women could be prosecuted if they "failed to wear a seat belt"." If can be held liable and negligent for not buckling up myself and/or children, why should a woman that is pregnant not also be held to the same standards?

I believe this to be the extreme in any case though. They are speaking more of people that jam a coat hanger (sorry I know its not a pretty thing to say, but get over it), paying people to beat their stomachs, among other avenues.

So again, people you need to research and critically think before you post. Otherwise you just look ignorant.



[edit on 28-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by links234


Nope links you are wrong, they are not circumventing Roe v. Wade. Read the law and not just some web-site that posts 3 words out of it.

This law is to make sure that women who choose to get an abortion are not held by a judge or prosecutor for murder and also it is to hold women that INTENTIONALLY, through a criminally negligent act knowingly to murder an unborn child at any stage of development.

Meaning

A: If the woman pays someone to beat her repeatedly in the stomach: Probably will be held accountable and tried.

B: If she goes to a medical facility and receives an abortion: Will not and cannot be held/tried under this provision.


[edit on 28-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Make that number a little smaller. I believe most States have on the books laws that define an unborn baby, life, when that life can be sustained outside of the womb.

A good lawyer would be able to argue that an pregnancy into its 8th month would yield a living, breathing human being. Now, 0-5 months...not the same case.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Star to you for pointing out my lack of research.

I will stand by my case that the resultant sociological impacts of having a doctor carry-out your abortion vs. claiming to have lost the child in a beating are the result of fundamentalist rhetoric and excommunication, so to speak.

reply to post by links234


With that I agree. A lot tend to just strip down the issue that is at hand to the most simplistic means i.e, choice v life when in reality the issue involves much more than just that.

I am also sorry after re-reading my post seeing I was pretty combative and forceful. I apologize as that was not that intent.