abortion classic or dud?

i dunno maybe there is something in ks case law that says it has to be imminent but "unreasonable" doesn't imply that to me. i agree it sucks but, lawyering, u know?

i mean i get what yr saying harbl/will's brother, but unless this is some cagey 'give em enough rope' ploy by the court, i honestly can't read this as anything other than a sympathetic judge hoping to set some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

which is why, beyond my own personal passion about the issue, this is a really terrible precedent - seriously wild-west stuff in a "I considered the decedent a bad actor" way. lawyer bros correct me if I'm wrong but a precedent's established by the use of the defense at all, right - not just successful use?

i don't know how many courts in america are following the important precedent of this one trial judge in kansas though

If someone murdered Roder on the steps of the courthouse L&O-style, couldn't they make the same argument in court?

it's not courts, it's that once precedent is established other judges can be persuaded to allow a case to proceed based on precedent having been established, i.e., you'd better believe every pro-life lawyer in the country will have his eyes on this as a way to wedge their murdering/clinic-bombing clients out of long-time charges

i just don't feel like that's true is what i'm saying. the lawyers that defend these guys will try it yeah (they would anyway!) but other judges are not more likely to allow it imo. also if you look at what happened to like all the other abortion clinic bombers and doctor murderers, bad things happened to all of them. if you wanna talk about precedent it looks more like it cuts the other way and rev. don spitz is an idiot. beyond this particular case i actually think defendants should be allowed to present insane defenses if they want to, as a general rule.

i DO agree it will make more unreasonable people think it's easier to get away with killing a doctor though, because they take advice from people like don spitz

at the same time i don't know how much of a deterrent life imprisonment was to them in the first place.....*thinks to self*

guy gives slightly more explanation in this article (warning: comments are ~nuts~) http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1672142.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html?hpt=T2

GUILTY

i wonder what Roeder's stance on capital punishment is?

doesn't matter he's not up for the death penalty

What a frigging relief.

*Whew*

see i told u there was nothing to worry about : )

well done, jury.

I hope he gets impregnated in jail fwiw

only 37 minutes of deliberation!

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

Putting aborted babies in frappuccinos and giving them to the poor.

How dare you figure out my moneymaking scheme.

<IMG SRC="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg"; ALT="some text" WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=32>

h/t sweet_communist at Gawker.com

None. It was skillfully played a wedge issue by the Right to induce religious fundamentalists to vote against their economic interests.

And for the question, it really comes down to whether one believes a human soul exists (aside a thought placeholder or rhetorical gesture). As a materialist, I see suffering of the living (and of the unwanted to live) from unwanted pregnancies, but embryos with little neural development have the same moral weight as any other tissue. For dualists and other spiritualists, a soul must become conjoined with the embryo at some point. Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment.

Planned Parenthood has some rather wealthy supporters. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, for example, funded two-thirds of the first year's trials of RU-486. So long as the legality of early trimester medical abortions can be safeguarded, there are ways for private concerns to subsidize the costs.

dude, I fail.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

Thx.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100405/pollitt

katha pollitt otm

jesus i didn't know that about maternal mortality rates

It really IS a good list.

the climate with this is so insanely polarised right now though. it feels like the worst approach WRT the healthcare bill was to try to take abortion off the table and leave hyde untouched, out of play; my question above was trying to work out what kinda of confrontation and reverse psychology and general jedi mind tricks need to happen for there to be any kind of turnaround on protection of foetal rights, criminalisation of mothers & general attitudes.

great article

Posted on a Yahoo News! Article:

"Abortion is evil and it is murder and anyone that disagrees, well, I guess Ronald Reagan said it best about those that value abortions. Honestly, to me, they are no better than those that strap bombs to themselves and kill lots of people, and especially the people that kill tons of children inside of the womb and then try to act as though nothing has ever happened to them in their lives. People like that are on par, if not exceeding, the worst of the black widow/black widower killers that I have seen in my life."

note that was not me that posted that, but some other asshole

black widow killers! hahahha

http://www.big-pix.com/shop/images/posters/f-blac-w.jpg

I believe in retroactive abortion.

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

I think Obama & his entire party have demonstrated that their only interested in this issue is as a bargaining chip, so don't look for "positive changes" imo

Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

sorta feel this is true, hence it's an intractable issue.

well, but lots of things are intractable issues - evolution vs. creationism, for example. so we set a societal baseline, and that's science over spiritual conviction. people on the "spiritual conviction" side of the q are welcome to live their lives as they see fit, but should be told, firmly and repeatedly, that they have no right whatsoever to legislate according to their beliefs.

Okay I've gotta disagree with this somewhat: "I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment."

The right to bodily autonomy is a pretty basic human right. Asking to have a say in what happens with somebody else's uterus is a pretty big infringement upon that right, in addition to the fact that women have a specific constitutional right to legal abortion. In other areas of life, we don't consider it acceptable to curtail people's access to their constitutional rights just because somebody else doesn't want to pay for it. The gov't spends money (on police, security, etc.) every time some group wants to have a protest march or rally; they do that even if it's a Nazi skinhead rally or something, because citizens have freedom of speech & freedom of assembly. Do I get to decide I don't want to pay for those things, because I think the U.S. version of free speech is too lax? Hell, no! The same goes for other stuff like defending yourself in court: If we cut off gov't spending on it because some people don't like paying for criminals to have public defenders, we'd be in a fine mess.

I also think the fact that some people have "religious objections" to abortion is sort of a red herring. #1, these views don't deserve special consideration because they are religious in character. They're no more untouchable than whatever philosophical or ethical objections someone might have. And some Americans might have equally strong religious objections to birth control, prenatal care for unmarried women, viagra, keeping comatose people alive on respirators, or lots of other things. It would be absurd for insurance stop covering them for that reason. A person's medical decisions should be between them & their doctor; they're not up for a vote.

but there are ethical (if not typically explicitly or implicitly religious) underpinnings of all of our laws. and i don't think opposition to abortion is always essentially religious; often it is more broadly ethical in character. and i don't think it's as clear-cut as evolution vs. creation. there is no evidence for creation. issues with the personhood (or lack thereof) of a fetus at various stages of development are more contested and complicated.

we're gonna get into the same damn centrist vs. progressive argument we always do here but giving up that ideological ground, as john says a lot, is really dangerous and should not be on the table. really agree with gudrun brangwen's post

Gudrun is so completely OTM! On ILX it's easy to get annoyed with male posters having a huge abortion rights argument with very limited input from anyone who'd actually need one, but I care very little for anyone who trots out their ideology to attempt to deny me equal rights and I hate it even more when *women* do it.

Interesting conversation today: gay friend had to deal with some battyboy-type catcalling from black teens in his neighbourhood and challenged them with 'has being in a minority taught you NOTHING?' Pointed out to him that I could never say that to those kids if they were being rude to me, would probably have to go with 'being oppressed' instead.

My opinion on abortion is that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she does with a foetus in her own body any more than she has the right to tell me what to do with my internal organs.

the only reason this even turned into a debate is because one can't just (cleanly) self-terminate pregnancies and have to seek out a specialist. well that and xtianity but that horse has been beaten to death.

and on the third day, it rose again

i have an eerie feeling that we may be 2-3 posts away from a post involving necrophilia....

equine christ necrophilia