Someone please tell me that this isn't true...

[AN0NYM0US]

I am amazed at the amount of people on here that compare drinking rat poison to a diet coke.

I am not sure if people are being silly or ignorant, but I would love to see one example of a woman going to jail for eating a $5 footlong while pregnant. I am positive this is not what the charge is for and is truly for serious offenses ie drinking rat poison and cocaine abuse causing the death of your child. There is no intent to cause harm shown in any of the silly suggestions here ex. driving, sushi, deli meat, missing a vitamin etc..If you are concerned that this law may affect you negatively maybe you should read a law book...or a parenting book.

Seriously? Last time I checked cocaine abuse (addiction most likely in many cases) is not an offense. (Maybe you should read up on your laws. Hint: the offenses are possession, possession with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.)

One with a drug addiction also shows no intent to cause harm. I would venture to say addicts, particularly pregnant addicts while we're at it, feel guilty about their addiction and intend no harm. In fact, a physician would likely warn an addict against getting clean during pregnancy as that in itself may cause a miscarriage since both fetus and mom are addicted. A pregnant addict uses because she is addicted, not to cause the death of her child. Similarly, when a pregnant woman (addict or not, you pick) who eats sushi, peanut butter, deli meat, cheese, has a cig or a swig of wine also does not intend to cause harm.

Since we're having trouble with this:

Intent -
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

In the preggo cocaine addict hypo her intent is to ingest cocaine. Her motive (I'm guessing here... ) is to stave off withdrawal and to feed her addiction. If her intent was in fact to kill said unborn fetus, I'm pretty sure she'd think of a better, more certain way to accomplish that than doing some coke.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Could you explain unintentional or negligent homicide? And their relation to Depraved-heart Murder?

 

[megumic]

I am amazed at the amount of people on here that compare drinking rat poison to a diet coke.

I am not sure if people are being silly or ignorant, but I would love to see one example of a woman going to jail for eating a $5 footlong while pregnant. I am positive this is not what the charge is for and is truly for serious offenses ie drinking rat poison and cocaine abuse causing the death of your child. There is no intent to cause harm shown in any of the silly suggestions here ex. driving, sushi, deli meat, missing a vitamin etc..If you are concerned that this law may affect you negatively maybe you should read a law book...or a parenting book.

Seriously? Last time I checked cocaine abuse (addiction most likely in many cases) is not an offense. (Maybe you should read up on your laws. Hint: the offenses are possession, possession with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.)

One with a drug addiction also shows no intent to cause harm. I would venture to say addicts, particularly pregnant addicts while we're at it, feel guilty about their addiction and intend no harm. In fact, a physician would likely warn an addict against getting clean during pregnancy as that in itself may cause a miscarriage since both fetus and mom are addicted. A pregnant addict uses because she is addicted, not to cause the death of her child. Similarly, when a pregnant woman (addict or not, you pick) who eats sushi, peanut butter, deli meat, cheese, has a cig or a swig of wine also does not intend to cause harm.

Since we're having trouble with this:

Intent -
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

In the preggo cocaine addict hypo her intent is to ingest cocaine. Her motive (I'm guessing here... ) is to stave off withdrawal and to feed her addiction. If her intent was in fact to kill said unborn fetus, I'm pretty sure she'd think of a better, more certain way to accomplish that than doing some coke.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Could you explain unintentional or negligent homicide? And their relation to Depraved-heart Murder?

Ha, just as soon as you come out from hiding. But I will say, negligent homicide and depraved-heart murder are certainly not one in the same.

 

[VapidLapid]

Depraved heart murder sounds more like a slogan from a manipulative public opinion campaign than it does a real world name for a real world act. Similar in design to the phrase "partial birth abortion". Phrases like this are coined intentionally to manipulate. They short circuit the rational faculty because they have judgement built into them. A tactic of the conservative right is to slip phrases like this into common usage, giving them a veneer of credibility.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

I am amazed at the amount of people on here that compare drinking rat poison to a diet coke.

I am not sure if people are being silly or ignorant, but I would love to see one example of a woman going to jail for eating a $5 footlong while pregnant. I am positive this is not what the charge is for and is truly for serious offenses ie drinking rat poison and cocaine abuse causing the death of your child. There is no intent to cause harm shown in any of the silly suggestions here ex. driving, sushi, deli meat, missing a vitamin etc..If you are concerned that this law may affect you negatively maybe you should read a law book...or a parenting book.

Seriously? Last time I checked cocaine abuse (addiction most likely in many cases) is not an offense. (Maybe you should read up on your laws. Hint: the offenses are possession, possession with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.)

One with a drug addiction also shows no intent to cause harm. I would venture to say addicts, particularly pregnant addicts while we're at it, feel guilty about their addiction and intend no harm. In fact, a physician would likely warn an addict against getting clean during pregnancy as that in itself may cause a miscarriage since both fetus and mom are addicted. A pregnant addict uses because she is addicted, not to cause the death of her child. Similarly, when a pregnant woman (addict or not, you pick) who eats sushi, peanut butter, deli meat, cheese, has a cig or a swig of wine also does not intend to cause harm.

Since we're having trouble with this:

Intent -
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

In the preggo cocaine addict hypo her intent is to ingest cocaine. Her motive (I'm guessing here... ) is to stave off withdrawal and to feed her addiction. If her intent was in fact to kill said unborn fetus, I'm pretty sure she'd think of a better, more certain way to accomplish that than doing some coke.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Could you explain unintentional or negligent homicide? And their relation to Depraved-heart Murder?

Ha, just as soon as you come out from hiding. But I will say, negligent homicide and depraved-heart murder are certainly not one in the same.

lol, Hiding? Me? Let me guess, your real name is Meg Umic, right?

and not the same, but related...The common law punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Depraved heart murder sounds more like a slogan from a manipulative public opinion campaign than it does a real world name for a real world act. Similar in design to the phrase "partial birth abortion". Phrases like this are coined intentionally to manipulate. They short circuit the rational faculty because they have judgement built into them. A tactic of the conservative right is to slip phrases like this into common usage, giving them a veneer of credibility.

This...I actually agree with.

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

 

[jstarfireb]

Yennyfire, you're right. In medical terminology, miscarriage is called spontaneous abortion, and termination is called therapeutic abortion or elective abortion. The word abortion in general means a pregnancy that does not result in a birth for any reason.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Charbie, I also am really surprised at your doctor for never discussing diet whatsoever? My daughter is 19 weeks pregnant and hers gave her the warning about deli meat and listeria and several other things to avoid early on.

But I do want to ask you a question, Charbie, since you said you are 29 weeks pregnant. If the unthinkable happened and you were robbed tomorrow and shot in the abdomen and your unborn baby died, you would be content with a charge and conviction of robbery and assault on you and no penalty whatsoever for the death of your baby? Because if that happened to my daughter tomorrow I know what I call it.

 

[sillyberry]

Depraved heart murder sounds more like a slogan from a manipulative public opinion campaign than it does a real world name for a real world act. Similar in design to the phrase "partial birth abortion". Phrases like this are coined intentionally to manipulate. They short circuit the rational faculty because they have judgement built into them. A tactic of the conservative right is to slip phrases like this into common usage, giving them a veneer of credibility.

FWIW, depraved heart murder comes from the common law. The Model Penal Code's version is homicide caused by "extreme indifference to the value of human life". It's frequently used to prosecute individuals for things such as extremely reckless driving (going 80 mph in a school zone at 3pm), hunting near a playground, Russian roulette, etc. At least it is on the Bar Exam.

I don't currently have access to Lexis or Westlaw, so I can't find the original citation (although Google is telling me it was at least used by Blackstone in the 1700s) , but it isn't some current term coined by anyone trying to manipulate you.

 

[Circe]

Charbie, I also am really surprised at your doctor for never discussing diet whatsoever? My daughter is 19 weeks pregnant and hers gave her the warning about deli meat and listeria and several other things to avoid early on.

But I do want to ask you a question, Charbie, since you said you are 29 weeks pregnant. If the unthinkable happened and you were robbed tomorrow and shot in the abdomen and your unborn baby died, you would be content with a charge and conviction of robbery and assault on you and no penalty whatsoever for the death of your baby? Because if that happened to my daughter tomorrow I know what I call it.

I'm not Charbie, but I have to say, I find the personalization almost ... offensive - whenever I've seen it used, it's in the attempt to make a woman superstitiously or emotionally agree on her attachment to her wanted pregnancy, as though that somehow acts as an umbrella for anti-choice rhetoric. To be honest, my first thought was, what, preggos have a special handle on the issue? And then I realized the answer was "Yes," just probably not in the intended direction.

See, I've had variants of this directed at me - "Now that you're pregnant, don't you better understand the sanctity of human life?" My answer is that I better understand the crucial importance of a woman's enthusiastic consent to her pregnancy, as it's the biggest commitment you will ever make in your life. The idea of the government meddling about with my womb gives me a tic. Tic of Rage (TM).

The longshot possibility of the apocryphal Dude in the Shadows is actually considerably less threatening to me than the prospect of certain factions of our government basically saying that my health is second to that of my fetus: second to the religious convictions of the medical staff who treat me: second, and, frankly, last on the list of official concerns. Cause, see, I read about the latter every single day. The former? Kind of a longshot that's right up there with, oh, that same Dude in the Shadows using my pigtails and overalls to make me complicit in my own rape.*

P.S. - For what it's worth, my doctor didn't give me that spiel, either. He seems to assume I'm relatively well-informed, and seems, if anything, surprised when I check with him to see if I can take any cold medicine, or what allergy pills he'd recommend, or the like.

*I am not making that up - both were on a list titled something like "100 Things a Woman Should Do to Avoid Being Raped" that went around a few years ago. Yet, oddly, nowhere on that list did you see "Go into public office and, a) legislate for stronger penalties against sex-crimes, and, b) discourage and debunk victim-blaming, manipulative crap whenever and wherever possible." Funny, that.

 

[Circe]

This issue makes me see red ....

[cut my own deathless prose to avoid repetition] ....

AMEN!

I love how you wrote this - I wish I had your way with words!

Aw, thanks DivaRose - I blush.

 

[charbie]

Charbie, I also am really surprised at your doctor for never discussing diet whatsoever? My daughter is 19 weeks pregnant and hers gave her the warning about deli meat and listeria and several other things to avoid early on.

But I do want to ask you a question, Charbie, since you said you are 29 weeks pregnant. If the unthinkable happened and you were robbed tomorrow and shot in the abdomen and your unborn baby died, you would be content with a charge and conviction of robbery and assault on you and no penalty whatsoever for the death of your baby? Because if that happened to my daughter tomorrow I know what I call it.

He honestly never said anything about what to eat and what not to eat. The only time he mentioned diet was at around 16 weeks and I hadn't gained any weight. He said I need to eat more, and sked if I was having issues with morning sickness that needed to be address. Never told me not to eat deli meat. In fact, when I was pregnant last year and miscarried, I had an appointment with another practice (changed practices due to moving.) I met first with my doc, then with his NP. She was the one who gave me a diet talk (basically don't eat anything suspicious, be careful with deli meats and sushi) and sent me on my way. I then was talking to my doc at a subsequent appt and we were discussing my appt with the NP. He asked if she gave me her speech about deli meats and sushi. I told him she had, and he kind of laughed, saying that he thinks it is a bit much, over the top, and she's all into being so by the book strict and he's never had a patient in his 25 yrs of practice get sick from deli meats. He said to use common sense, actually, and that he doesn't necessarily agree with the NP and all of her objections.

And I think at a point where a pregnancy is viable outside of the mothers body, there is a different responsibility than before that point. Yes, at 29 weeks I would raise hell over intentionally harming my baby. Even as a pro choice woman, I do feel there is a point where a line should be drawn.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Charbie, I also am really surprised at your doctor for never discussing diet whatsoever? My daughter is 19 weeks pregnant and hers gave her the warning about deli meat and listeria and several other things to avoid early on.

But I do want to ask you a question, Charbie, since you said you are 29 weeks pregnant. If the unthinkable happened and you were robbed tomorrow and shot in the abdomen and your unborn baby died, you would be content with a charge and conviction of robbery and assault on you and no penalty whatsoever for the death of your baby? Because if that happened to my daughter tomorrow I know what I call it.

He honestly never said anything about what to eat and what not to eat. The only time he mentioned diet was at around 16 weeks and I hadn't gained any weight. He said I need to eat more, and sked if I was having issues with morning sickness that needed to be address. Never told me not to eat deli meat. In fact, when I was pregnant last year and miscarried, I had an appointment with another practice (changed practices due to moving.) I met first with my doc, then with his NP. She was the one who gave me a diet talk (basically don't eat anything suspicious, be careful with deli meats and sushi) and sent me on my way. I then was talking to my doc at a subsequent appt and we were discussing my appt with the NP. He asked if she gave me her speech about deli meats and sushi. I told him she had, and he kind of laughed, saying that he thinks it is a bit much, over the top, and she's all into being so by the book strict and he's never had a patient in his 25 yrs of practice get sick from deli meats. He said to use common sense, actually, and that he doesn't necessarily agree with the NP and all of her objections.

And I think at a point where a pregnancy is viable outside of the mothers body, there is a different responsibility than before that point. Yes, at 29 weeks I would raise hell over intentionally harming my baby. Even as a pro choice woman, I do feel there is a point where a line should be drawn.

Charbie, I sincerely appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful reply. I agree with much of what you said. Thank you.

 

[charbie]

I just saw what Circe wrote, and had never thought about things in that way, but have to agrree that I chose this pregnancy, I chose to stop using birth control and tried to get pregnant. I have a very different emotional bond with this baby bc I made an educated decision to get pregnant. The girls who are pregnant, hiding it, ignoring it, ashamed by it, whatever they may feel by being completely uprepared for a prregnancy....they may feel relief if they lost a baby by the way you descibed, to be honest. A very young girl I work with, actually, is a week further along than I am, and told me in confidence her mom is making her have the baby, and she has no idea how she is going to care for it, since she cannot care for herself even. My heart breaks for her, and I know she feels bad to see how excited I am to have my baby, while she is dreading the birth of hers at this moment.

 

[movie zombie]

The direction of my country currently terrifies me.

has terrified me for years. having been a part of the womens' movement of the 70's, i'm afraid the real war against women is just heating up and younger women have no idea what is coming at them. its so very very sad.

 

[charbie]

Charbie, I also am really surprised at your doctor for never discussing diet whatsoever? My daughter is 19 weeks pregnant and hers gave her the warning about deli meat and listeria and several other things to avoid early on.

But I do want to ask you a question, Charbie, since you said you are 29 weeks pregnant. If the unthinkable happened and you were robbed tomorrow and shot in the abdomen and your unborn baby died, you would be content with a charge and conviction of robbery and assault on you and no penalty whatsoever for the death of your baby? Because if that happened to my daughter tomorrow I know what I call it.

He honestly never said anything about what to eat and what not to eat. The only time he mentioned diet was at around 16 weeks and I hadn't gained any weight. He said I need to eat more, and sked if I was having issues with morning sickness that needed to be address. Never told me not to eat deli meat. In fact, when I was pregnant last year and miscarried, I had an appointment with another practice (changed practices due to moving.) I met first with my doc, then with his NP. She was the one who gave me a diet talk (basically don't eat anything suspicious, be careful with deli meats and sushi) and sent me on my way. I then was talking to my doc at a subsequent appt and we were discussing my appt with the NP. He asked if she gave me her speech about deli meats and sushi. I told him she had, and he kind of laughed, saying that he thinks it is a bit much, over the top, and she's all into being so by the book strict and he's never had a patient in his 25 yrs of practice get sick from deli meats. He said to use common sense, actually, and that he doesn't necessarily agree with the NP and all of her objections.

And I think at a point where a pregnancy is viable outside of the mothers body, there is a different responsibility than before that point. Yes, at 29 weeks I would raise hell over intentionally harming my baby. Even as a pro choice woman, I do feel there is a point where a line should be drawn.

Charbie, I sincerely appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful reply. I agree with much of what you said. Thank you.

You got it I like when people can share theirs views and its ok....and not feel looked down upon or raked over the coals. This is an emotional issue, very heated, and the two sides have a very difficult time accepting that they wont see eye to eye, as it is fundamentally not possible.

 

[Imdanny]

This issue makes me see red.

I don't think that anybody out there seriously believes that this legislation - any of this legislation - is being constructed with the well-being of infants in mind. If it was, perhaps these politicians might be trying to see more funds go to adoption, pediatric healthcare, Child Protective Services, or education. It's a way to chip away at Roe vs. Wade: to erode, and eventually, eradicate, women's rights.

I say "rights," plural, because for a lot of the fundies, it's not just abortion that's at issue: some of them think that "life begins" way before implantation, which is what the medical establishment agrees on. They'd like to use it as a way to outlaw birth control, and reverse all the changes it brought - was it Times Magazine that called The Pill the greatest advance of the 20th century, outpacing everything from the polio vaccine to the internet in the social advances it wrought?

Hey, remember when Georgia state rep Bobby Franklin basically tried to outlaw menstruation? 2007. Utah tried something similar in 2010: they wanted to prosecute "reckless" behavior during pregnancy, which could well include all the things Charbie listed ... or, for that matter, just driving in a car, since there's an indirect correlation between that and risk of miscarriage for women (as a side effect of the women themselves being in accidents). The argument for "fetal personhood" tends to give embryos rather more rights than women: I can't help but feel that the principle behind this is, hey, if you produce a boy baby, it's a person ... and if it's a girl baby, it can be an incubator. Just like mommy. At the end of the day, this is a way to control women, and it sucks.

The wording of the Mississipi law that Too Patient is quoting was intended to prosecute people who did back-alley abortions, and to discourage boyfriends and domestic partners from slipping ground-up methotrexate into their pregnant partners food to end their wanted pregnancies(as we see in two cases currently being prosecuted, one in England, on in the US). Sub-section 4 seems to specifically exempt the women involved from prosecution. The fact that the law is being applied in this fashion is, if you'll pardon the expression, a miscarriage of justice.

P.S. - I've had three miscarriages. One at 20 weeks, two more early on. I did plenty of blaming myself, believe me, but it turned out that I hadn't done anything "wrong." It was a blood clotting disorder ... that took a year to diagnose. Wonder if I would have been sentenced before the diagnosis (which I only got because of top-of-the-line health insurance - not so much of an option for women who don't have access to unusual and expensive tests). Heck, for that matter, I wonder if it would matter to these prosecutors. Gotta punish women for the crime of being women, amirite?

You are so right. It's all about eradicating Roe vs. Wade and other rights women have relating to reproduction, all in an attempt to drag the country backward in time so that yes patriarchal "Christian" leaders can control all of society. I'll tell you what. We have separation of Church and State in this country, and before these people will ever dictate my religious beliefs to me, it will be a cold day in Hell.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

This issue makes me see red.

I don't think that anybody out there seriously believes that this legislation - any of this legislation - is being constructed with the well-being of infants in mind. If it was, perhaps these politicians might be trying to see more funds go to adoption, pediatric healthcare, Child Protective Services, or education. It's a way to chip away at Roe vs. Wade: to erode, and eventually, eradicate, women's rights.

I say "rights," plural, because for a lot of the fundies, it's not just abortion that's at issue: some of them think that "life begins" way before implantation, which is what the medical establishment agrees on. They'd like to use it as a way to outlaw birth control, and reverse all the changes it brought - was it Times Magazine that called The Pill the greatest advance of the 20th century, outpacing everything from the polio vaccine to the internet in the social advances it wrought?

Hey, remember when Georgia state rep Bobby Franklin basically tried to outlaw menstruation? 2007. Utah tried something similar in 2010: they wanted to prosecute "reckless" behavior during pregnancy, which could well include all the things Charbie listed ... or, for that matter, just driving in a car, since there's an indirect correlation between that and risk of miscarriage for women (as a side effect of the women themselves being in accidents). The argument for "fetal personhood" tends to give embryos rather more rights than women: I can't help but feel that the principle behind this is, hey, if you produce a boy baby, it's a person ... and if it's a girl baby, it can be an incubator. Just like mommy. At the end of the day, this is a way to control women, and it sucks.

The wording of the Mississipi law that Too Patient is quoting was intended to prosecute people who did back-alley abortions, and to discourage boyfriends and domestic partners from slipping ground-up methotrexate into their pregnant partners food to end their wanted pregnancies(as we see in two cases currently being prosecuted, one in England, on in the US). Sub-section 4 seems to specifically exempt the women involved from prosecution. The fact that the law is being applied in this fashion is, if you'll pardon the expression, a miscarriage of justice.

P.S. - I've had three miscarriages. One at 20 weeks, two more early on. I did plenty of blaming myself, believe me, but it turned out that I hadn't done anything "wrong." It was a blood clotting disorder ... that took a year to diagnose. Wonder if I would have been sentenced before the diagnosis (which I only got because of top-of-the-line health insurance - not so much of an option for women who don't have access to unusual and expensive tests). Heck, for that matter, I wonder if it would matter to these prosecutors. Gotta punish women for the crime of being women, amirite?

You are so right. It's all about eradicating Roe vs. Wade and other rights women have relating to reproduction, all in an attempt to drag the country backward in time so that yes patriarchal "Christian" leaders can control all of society. I'll tell you what. We have separation of Church and State in this country, and before these people will ever dictate my religious beliefs to me, it will be a cold day in Hell.

I'm Pro-Life and an Atheist...we do exist.

 

[Pandora II]

II'm Pro-Life and an Atheist...we do exist.

Absolutely - in the same way that you can be an Atheist and have realtively right-wing political views (although I'll add here that I mean right-wing UK political views as they are somewhat different!)

However, your pro-life views are not all tied up with religion and quoting biblical texts at people, or wanting to impose your religious beliefs on other people and so forming legislation that affects everyone - religious or otherwise, Christian or otherwise - based upon them.

 

[megumic]

I am amazed at the amount of people on here that compare drinking rat poison to a diet coke.

I am not sure if people are being silly or ignorant, but I would love to see one example of a woman going to jail for eating a $5 footlong while pregnant. I am positive this is not what the charge is for and is truly for serious offenses ie drinking rat poison and cocaine abuse causing the death of your child. There is no intent to cause harm shown in any of the silly suggestions here ex. driving, sushi, deli meat, missing a vitamin etc..If you are concerned that this law may affect you negatively maybe you should read a law book...or a parenting book.

Seriously? Last time I checked cocaine abuse (addiction most likely in many cases) is not an offense. (Maybe you should read up on your laws. Hint: the offenses are possession, possession with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.)

One with a drug addiction also shows no intent to cause harm. I would venture to say addicts, particularly pregnant addicts while we're at it, feel guilty about their addiction and intend no harm. In fact, a physician would likely warn an addict against getting clean during pregnancy as that in itself may cause a miscarriage since both fetus and mom are addicted. A pregnant addict uses because she is addicted, not to cause the death of her child. Similarly, when a pregnant woman (addict or not, you pick) who eats sushi, peanut butter, deli meat, cheese, has a cig or a swig of wine also does not intend to cause harm.

Since we're having trouble with this:

Intent -
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

In the preggo cocaine addict hypo her intent is to ingest cocaine. Her motive (I'm guessing here... ) is to stave off withdrawal and to feed her addiction. If her intent was in fact to kill said unborn fetus, I'm pretty sure she'd think of a better, more certain way to accomplish that than doing some coke.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Could you explain unintentional or negligent homicide? And their relation to Depraved-heart Murder?

Ha, just as soon as you come out from hiding. But I will say, negligent homicide and depraved-heart murder are certainly not one in the same.

lol, Hiding? Me? Let me guess, your real name is Meg Umic, right?

and not the same, but related...The common law punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette.

Shoot, how'd ya know?!?!

 

[ksinger]

The direction of my country currently terrifies me.

has terrified me for years. having been a part of the womens' movement of the 70's, i'm afraid the real war against women is just heating up and younger women have no idea what is coming at them. its so very very sad.

Boy have you got that right. I'm only (yeah...only ) screaming up on 49, but I do remember the brouhaha when abortion was legalized, even at my tender age at the time. I have also studied the history of the topic (back in my old feminist days - think it may be time to dust that mindset off and buff it up a bit don't you?), and it ain't pretty. The long, slow backlash is just about to explode I fear.

 

[Lanie]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

 

[iheartscience]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

How so? If women aren't scared by the current anti-women legislation spree the conservative right is on, they haven't been paying attention.

 

[Circe]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

Does my life as a woman in America suck considerably less than it would in a third world country? Oh, most definitely.

Am I increasingly convinced that a lot of people who are currently advancing this retrograde legislation think wistfully of those countries as they natter on about how American woman don't know their places and order up their mail-order brides from said third world countries?

Oh, you know where I'm going. C'mon, say it with me!

MOST DEFINITELY.

 

[Lanie]

The Iran comment? That's just in poor, poor taste. I won't go into some of the other ones because I know I'd get slammed by many of you here.

 

[Lauren8211]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

I don't think anyone is crossing the line. Maybe my physical life isn't in danger, but my body is slowly being controlled by the government, and if that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is.

Our rights are literally being stripped right before our eyes. Between Ohio's heartbeat bill (Which isn't even being backed by "Right to LIfe" due to its unconstitutionality) and Kansas's regulatory control over abortion clinics which is theoretically banning abortions in Kansas by THIS FRIDAY, I don't know how anyone can stand it. I'm TERRIFIED of what is going on. Like Movie Zombie referenced, everything women fought for before my time is being ripped away. How much further back in time do we want to go? We have to get pissed NOW!

 

[megumic]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

I don't think anyone is crossing the line. Maybe my physical life isn't in danger, but my body is slowly being controlled by the government, and if that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is.

Our rights are literally being stripped right before our eyes. Between Ohio's heartbeat bill (Which isn't even being backed by "Right to LIfe" due to its unconstitutionality) and Kansas's regulatory control over abortion clinics which is theoretically banning abortions in Kansas by THIS FRIDAY, I don't know how anyone can stand it. I'm TERRIFIED of what is going on. Like Movie Zombie referenced, everything women fought for before my time is being ripped away. How much further back in time do we want to go? We have to get pissed NOW!

Ditto. Plus, we should compare the US to itself, not to other countries. The bottom line is that our Constitutional Rights are being encroached upon from all four corners of the document.

 

[Circe]

The Iran comment? That's just in poor, poor taste. I won't go into some of the other ones because I know I'd get slammed by many of you here.

I'm not jumping on ya - I'm one of those people who gets annoyed when people misused the word "literally." That said ... while we're not Iran, I do detect some similarities between religious fundamentalists of all stripes, and the attitudes they display towards women.

And ... how bad does it have to be before I'm terrified? I don't want to make this thread emotionally manipulative by bringing in personal anecdotes, but just for context, I have to say, after I found out my first pregnancy had ended with the death of the fetus, the thought that I might have to carry the dead baby indefinitely came pretty close to driving me mad. The idea that, if I had to be induced at a clinic being picketed by crazies, I might have to explain my circumstances to them before they let me through ... that didn't make me happy, either. If I'd been in a state other than California - Nebraska is the most recent example to come to mind - the first thought might not have been hypothetical, and the crazy in question might have been behind a bench instead of pacing a sidewalk. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27abortion.html?_r=1&hp)

I don't care if it makes me a wuss compared to the women who survive the terrible circumstances of Iran. I'm literally terrified.

 

[VapidLapid]

I literally love that cartoon!

 

[Jennifer W]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

How so? If women aren't scared by the current anti-women legislation spree the conservative right is on, they haven't been paying attention.

I must admit, I haven't been paying attention. As someone who doesn't live in the US, I wasn't really aware of this agenda. If this was happening where I lived I would be scared, afraid for myself and my daughter. Partly because I'd be wondering what comes next.

 

[mrs jam]

Terrified of being a woman in the US? I can think of other countries I would rather not be in as a woman. I would never think of my day to day life as terrifying. That's sad.

I think some people on this thread are crossing the line.

Does my life as a woman in America suck considerably less than it would in a third world country? Oh, most definitely.

Am I increasingly convinced that a lot of people who are currently advancing this retrograde legislation think wistfully of those countries as they natter on about how American woman don't know their places and order up their mail-order brides from said third world countries?

Oh, you know where I'm going. C'mon, say it with me!

MOST DEFINITELY.

I am noticing more and more "mail-order bride" type relationships. It's crazy. I don't know if I've just become more sensitive to it because of a freaky ex of mine, or if it is something that is really on the rise. This guy, who was born and raised in the U.S. and has never even traveled outside of its borders, used to make disparaging remarks about "American women" all the time and talk about how the divorce rate in this country is due to the selfish mindset of the American Woman. I started becoming more aware of the couples I see made up of a man (and I'm not talking about saggy-balled old men, but men in their 30s and 40s) and a non-English speaking woman. I never really knew that some men still possessed antiquated beliefs about a woman's place until my experience with this person. There is no education quite like the enlightenment gained by experience with a crazy ex, I guess.