I had always assumed all “spontaneous fetal deaths” were miscarriages, but I never considered the possibility of suicide.
Nevermind - post would just derail the thread
Even if I grant this… it would have to be a result of a new law. The proposed law has no such mechanism.
No, that’s not it. The law says, “A spontaneous fetal death that that is required to be reported by this section…”
This means there are two categories of fetal deaths: those required to be reported under this section, and those that are not.
They are all miscarriages. None are suicides.
Oooohhh. SO close to answering the $64,000 question (hint: It’s the one with all the emphasizing modifications, above).
Yet I retain hope.
The Rand Rover Principle: Conservatives are always right because when they’re wrong, the other conservatives deny they were a conservative.
The proposed bill doesn’t make any changes to reporting requirements under existing Georgia law.
So are you asking what Georgia law already requires, or what reporting requirement is added by the new bill?
Sure, but just so you know, it’s pedophilia. She’s a teen, and I’m untold vigintillions of years old
Well, then, here’s my predictable response:
Seriously? The entire BBQ Pit forum is about fucking FEELINGS. No one smart enough to be on this board should need to be told that. Give this persecution crap a rest.
If you want a debate without getting insulted, go open a thread in GD. You want people to have to provide citations, again, GD. In the Pit, none of that is required. You know this, so stop acting like you are so much better than us when you apparently can’t process the purpose of separate forums. In here, we get to insult you when you insult the rest of us.
The funny thing is, if you hadn’t stared pulling out your persecution complex, no one would have cared this time. For once, the law is actually relevant. The subject actually is a law, and knowing what it says is actually relevant to knowing whether the outrage (a feeling) is justified. Had you just said, “I had a look at that law. I don’t think it says what you think it says. Here’s the actual text. [insert quote] I think we are getting upset over nothing,” I bet that, not only would everyone not insult you, but (assuming you didn’t miss something) we’d actually be in agreement with you–meaning you’d actually win a debate for once.
But, no, that response wouldn’t allow you to keep your illusion that we are horrible people, that we just want to bash conservatives and don’t care about the truth. It could never be that your actions cause the type responses you get. You are so much better than the rest of us.
You’re a sexist asshole. You’re just cowardly about it. You came stomping into this thread, declaring that everyone who disagreed with you was ignorant and stupid and then when confronted with my own sarcasm, you declared me to be shrieking hysterically. That’s a direct quote. And now it appears that anyone who’s NOT you is correct about this bill because once again you minimized and evaded and shied away away from being honest. This bill would in fact require women to report miscarriages for investigation and certificates. While you’re arguing that a word that’s flung at women for the purposes of characterizing them as unreasonable and emotional is not sexist you’re also being shown to be a liar and a sexist. You just don’t like it when the people you peremptorily dismiss as fools and hysterics fight back.
The word hysteria and its derivatives is not as simple as you ever-so-carefully state. Specifically, the ancient Greeks said that it was when a woman lacked a baby her uterus would wander the body searching for one. It’s used to imply that a woman is emotional and, well, hysterical, and so her words can be dismissed, which is exactly how you used it, right off the bat, when I sarcastically asked you if you’d care to fill out paperwork for your wanking.
You are dishonest and dishonorable, and you owe me an apology.
I would just like clarification on one point. Obviously that list is not cumulative but is listing separate individual instances that would trigger a murder investigation. Would not the section “(3) Suddenly when in apparent good health” be good enough to trigger the investigation assuming that the pregnancy was healthy and indications were good that it would be carried to term? There is no “after birth” requirement here and the language seems broad enough that if someone wanted to use the law to harass they could.
I find so much about this post telling.
You seem to think that winning a debate is accomplished by having people on this board agree with me? I don’t (ha ha!) agree. Many of the particpants herein, including those most vocal, are unlikely to bend or admit their agreement. I do agree that it’s possible to reach the more fairminded and neutral reader, and I am reasonably confident I do that on a somewhat regular basis. But in the final analysis, this is an aggressively left-leaning board, and so agreement with me is an elusive goal at best. But I do agree that the board’s population seeks comfort from its comfortable majority, telling each other how right they are and reassuring themselves that they must be winning, based on how they all think the same way.
I also completely reject your vision of The Pit as some kind of fact-free area. ANY forum on this board ought to be susceptible to basic notions of accuracy and factual support. “Fighting Ignorance,” is not the motto only of GD and GQ, but the entire board.
Finally, I think your implicit acknowledgement that the facts are on my side here is hilarious, couched as it is amongst remonstrations about how wrong I am.
You are aware we’re talking about current Georgia law, on the books for years… right?
So is your question about the new, proposed law? Or about current law?
I think the spoiler meant to say “anti” when they said “pro.”
I was just looking for clarification as you seem to feel that the fact that there is a set of circumstances which state specifically “after birth” to be important in some way. I just wanted to clarify for myself why other aspects of the list were unimportant.
Being a layperson I gathered from the discussion that it was possible that redefining fetal death to fetal murder might trigger a murder investigation. Your response was that because there was a section in the requirements indicating “after birth and before 7 years of age…” that this would not happen. If I followed the discussion accurately (and being it is 6:30am and I have not yet had my coffee it is more than possible I did not) it seemed a point that the requirements are individual and not cumulative. I am willing to be wrong.
Counselor! Come out, come out, wherever you are.
Seems like you’re being evasive. I’m starting to wonder whether in fact you are as expert on Georgia law here as you have presented yourself, and whether or not you have been talking out of your ass. Gee, I sure hope not.
It also seems that you are arguing both that an investigation is ALREADY REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT LAW, so there are no changes in the proposed bill, and that there are no investigations required unless the miscarriage occurs AFTER BIRTH. Now, the latter makes no sense to me, but it would seem that if it is AFTER BIRTH, then there really are no investigations required UNDER CURRENT LAW.
So, again, which spontaneous fetal deaths are presently required to be investigated? Since you have assured us that the proposed law will bring no changes, you must know what the present law is.
You’re wrong, in he sense that you’re conflating two questions.
Put as simply as possible, my point has been that the new bill doesn’t change any reporting requirements.
So you’re on the right path when you say: “I gathered from the discussion that it was possible that redefining fetal death to fetal murder might trigger a murder investigation,” but you’ve made a change to that original statement.
What’s you’ve said is true. Under the new law, a fetal death might trigger a murder investigation. And this would not happen under current law.
But that’s not a result of the new law imposing any additional investigation requirements. Georgia law has always (well, for years) required the reporting of spontaneous fetal deaths under certain circumstances. No event that wasn’t reportable under the old laws is reportable under the new.
But under the new system, a miscarriage that results from human intervention would be a murder. That’s the effect to complain about,
What does Georgia law already require? Which spontaneous fetal deaths are already subject to a reporting requirement?
And in all this anal-retentive arguing so as to ignore the fact that Repubs and their apologists are harassing women yet again, we’ve lost sight of what this means in real, practical terms for peoples’ lives. Not theories, not dictionaries, not principles, not vacuums. Real lives–in this case, the lives of women. But making this all theoretical also has the side effect of divorcing it from women, and that makes it easier to ignore that people are cavaliarly dismissing yet again cruelty to women.
Bravo again, Bricker.
Did you miss the part where he said he disapproves of the bill anyway, jackass, in amid all your hysteria? God dammit, he’s telling you the bill’s adjustments to the language of the Georgia statutes don’t change the required reporting sections (WHICH ALREADY EXIST. If this law does not pass, you are STILL REQUIRED to report miscarriages in Georgia) except to remove the exemption for abortion. Why the hell are you ignoring the entire front half of the bill wherein Georgia is declared to A) be able to ignore the Supreme Court and B) believe that abortion is punishable as murder? The miscarriage language is a speck compared to the huge steaming pile the rest of the bill is.