Well, the official Utah answer to that is (apparently) “If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t be having sex like a dirty whore.”
Saving this post to quote when gun control advocates seek to pass laws limiting Second Amendment rights. Now I can say,“This will take away all guns and criminalize possession of bullet fragments!” with perfect safety.
The wrongness, it burns, stop talking, your wrongness of words is fire in my brain.
While it’s true that there are levels if assault to which you can consent, there are also levels of assault that you cannot consent to… if it were otherwise, assisted suicide would be essentially legal.
There is a tension, in other words, between your ability to consent and society’s interest in protecting people from harm. It’s not a bright-line standard, but your post above suggests that a person may consent to his own savage beating without a hint of legal liability for the beater, and that is simply untrue.
So it’s clear that… hey, wait a second. An argument based on an untrue statement… in support of a claim by the Left.
Sorry, my mistake. Everything’s fine here. It’s only the Right that’s not allowed this tactic. Carry on.
I’m pretty sure you’re pro-choice… so thank you for saying this.
Another false equivalence; gun control advocates are not primarily motivated by malice. Nor is forbidding people private ownership of guns a physical violation. Nor do they assassinate people who disagree with them. And so on; the two groups aren’t at all alike, in behavior or in motivation.
Again; the anti-abortion movement is much more akin to anti-semitism or racism than it is to something like gun control. And I find it amusing that so many people want to pretend that it’s loony to think that movement built on hate will behave the way that it always has been. Yes, I’m so very unreasonable to expect that they’ll harass and abuse women the way that they alway do when they can. :rolleyes:
Ah, but in this case, the legal liability of the beater isn’t at issue. In fact this law wasn’t amended to be sure that someone enlisted to beat a pregnant woman until she miscarries could be prosecuted, but specifically so that the woman herself could be prosecuted.
This is not about protecting women. The fact that a woman can consent to be beaten when not pregnant but now cannot if she is pregnant if she knows there’s a risk of miscarriage or because she wants to miscarry says that the fetus is the one being protected by this law. And the fact that there is no distinction being made regarding gestational age means that pre-viability fetuses are being given protections which, per Roe v. Wade, they are not entitled to, by federal law.
I almost missed this (actually I did miss it on the first “go round”), but it’s absolutely true. The USA is not a theocracy. The USA (and I say this with tongue in cheek) is supposed to be a paragon of the Rule Of Law and the Triumph Of Logic (or something).
I was referring to the article writers, not you.
But, OK, at your request, I’ll re-read the OP without my “blinders” on. The thread title does not read “Is Utah law ciminializing miscarriages?” it reads “Utah law to criminalize miscarriages” which is a very misleading interpretation of the situation when the additional “…miscarriages which are caused by criminal recklessness” is missed off the end, where “criminal recklessness” means something specific. You weren’t asking a question, you made a statement.
Half-way, but no cigar. Our constitution provides that there shall be no religious test for public office and no establishment of religion or interference with the free exercise of religion. In short, religion in this county (or presumably the absence of religion) is supposed to be outside the realm of government.