Saying "that's absurd" without anything other than OPINION to back it up - what is the difference? When asked to explain my position, I did - several times. At this point if my explanation isn't "good enough" for you, that is your problem, not mine.
the difficulty is that how are you really going to determine what is an 'intentional' miscarriage. which is something you seem to be taking for granted and in fact list several circumstances, such as i guess drinking bleach or shocking your stomach with a car battery or making a superman leap off of a second story building or any number of wildly psychotic methods.
for those sort of things that are that wildly irrational and also have some sort of malicious, self-destructive intent, we already have social rules and laws. those people are harming themselves.
now, we are left with the other situations. these are a wide variety of other circumstances where a woman could have a miscarriage where there's not really a clearly defined intent. so it's perfectly cool to waste taxpayer money and inflict stress on people who have undergone miscarriages just to determine whether or not they killed a cluster of cells that after an appropriate gestation process will have external senses and an understanding of self.
i think the main problem here is that this law is targeted towards punishing women for not carrying their children to term, which is not typically done with malign intent and it's very difficult to prove if it is done so. considering that the morning-after pill can be considered miscarriage under the guidelines and condoms are never 100% effective, it falls well in line with the idea that children are a punishment and an obligation for the sexual act.
not that it's really acceptable for a woman to purposely inflict a miscarriage on themselves, but in our society, where abortion clinics are seen by many as socially unacceptable and the process of having an abortion can bear a stigma, as well as the scarcity and the fact that minors can be barred from having one if their legal guardians don't find it acceptable, i don't really see why we should be legislating something like this. especially considering that a large number of women who have miscarriages are adversely affected psychologically, and being scrutinized as if you've somehow intentionally murdered a fetus is really not a proper thing to do.
really, if this law is waiting signature, then it means that people are apparently having enough forced miscarriages that it has become a social problem in need of rectification, and honestly the response to that should be a broadening of family planning services instead of some psychotic fundamentalist witch-hunt to ensure that if a woman falls down the stairs it wasn't due to some murderous urge to kill the human growing inside her.
Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. I did explain. My explanation is that some things I'm okay with. Some things I'm not. I never said anything was right or wrong legally and there's a huge difference.
DO:
* expect to be challenged when you say something on this board.
* be prepared to defend your viewpoint using facts, logic, and external sources.
then honestly if your only defense is "well people shouldn't drink bleach" and then "well i'm okay with some things and sometimes i'm not" is this the right place for it? i want to clarify my post above due to this: i think it's wrong for people to intentionally miscarry, but i don't find it something that should be legislated because a) it's not really anyone else's business and b) the law as it exists can be used to infringe on the rights of women.
