Bruce Starr: Government should leave people alone; except when I say otherwise
Carla Axtman
Update: 12:13PM Senator Starr has inroduced Senate Bill 982. The legislation in fact does have an exemption for abortion and for acts committed by the pregnant woman. I'm still against this, however. IMO it's an opening of the door to make abortion a crime (even with the exemption) and the accused is already facing a capital crime.
The recent murder of a pregnant Washington County woman has sent State Senator Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) in search of a way to make harming the unborn a crime.
Via Nothstine, Starr tells the AP that he's drafting a bill:
In the wake of an attack on a woman who died along with her unborn child, a state lawmaker wants Oregon to join 36 states and the federal government in making it a crime to harm a fetus.Republican Sen. Bruce Starr said Tuesday he is drafting a bill that would create a crime of assault on an unborn child and expand criminal homicide to include the death of an unborn child.
Of course, nowhere does it say that Starr plans to make an exemption for legal medical practices such as abortion.
The brand of crazy required to cut a pregnant woman open and pull out her fetus is beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm no lawyer/legal expert, but that's got to be pretty damn close to the definition of "criminally insane". The woman who is accused of committing the act has already been arraigned on murder charges and is facing more indictments today. I suspect she's already facing maximum penalties, including the death penalty.
As Nothstine so eloquently wrote, "Come for the gratifying symbolism, stay for the continued whittling away of women's right to control their own bodies."
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 15, '09
While I agree with the sentiment of your message, it really undermines your argument when you don't read the bill. If you look at section 1 it specifically excludes abortion.
Your argument would have been much more effective if it talked about a "back-door attempt" rather than contradicting the exact language of the bill.
Senate Bill 982
12:08 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
Based on the four news accounts I read on this issue, I thought that the bill was still in the drafting stages.
I still don't agree with the premise of this because the accused is already facing the death penalty, but I'll add the bill to the post.
Jun 15, '09
Seems poorly worded to me, and screws up the mens rea (mental state) of homicide. Homicide requires intent, knowledge of your act, or criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is defined by a disregard for a reasonably forseeable outcome. But for the unborn, the statute says it is not a defense if the person "could not reasonably know" about the fetus' existence. How that reconciles with criminal negligence escapes me, at least on first read.
Jun 15, '09
Carla,
I'm sure your opposition to this bill based on it being a backdoor attempt to make abortion altogether illegal helps you to understand why many Americans are against a "government option" in the healthcare debate.
Jun 15, '09
The crime is heinous and deserves the highest option legally. That should include 2 counts of murder. Carla, if 36 states have already enacted similar legislation without any erosion of the right to an abortion why the concern here for Oregon?
You are dangerously close to being portrayed in the same light as staunch gun rights supports who can not see any good in reasonable legislation that may eventually, someday, somehow take away a little bit of their gun rights.
I think you are a little too paranoid on this one.
Of course you think that Gary Ridgeway should have only been charged and tried for one of his murders?
1:16 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
I think I've been pretty clear on the fact that the crime is heinous, Kurt.
If the law is changed to make this crime a 2-count murder, then it opens the door to legal and policy arguments on changing abortion laws. These policies are already under constant assault.
If that makes me someone who is concerned about having "eventually someday, somehow take a little bit.." of my rights away, then so be it.
In this case, I'm good with that.
1:21 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
When did Ridgeway ever kill any fetuses? If he didn't, what does his case have to do with this one? You can't commit homicide on an entity without rights of personhood, which would include a) animals; b) inanimate objects, c) people already dead; and d) people not yet born.
I don't have any problem with separate crimes of desecration or abuse with regards to a fetus, but you can't "murder" something not vested with personhood rights. This bill puts the cart waaaay before the horse on that one, intentionally. That's why it's a bad bill.
Jun 15, '09
OK, the guy murdered a woman. Last time I checked, they didn't give people a slap on the wrist for that.
In fact, last time I checked, they were able to double the presumed sentence for such things as deliberate cruelty or when the harm is greater than typical.
Seems to me, the woman's pregnancy isn't a separate crime; it's an aggravating factor, which has the same result you want--a longer sentence. Is there a reason we have to change the law yet again to create more punishments? It's not as if they're going to let this scumbucket loose any time soon (assuming he is in fact guilty).
Jun 15, '09
The money quote:The brand of crazy required to cut a pregnant woman open and pull out her fetus is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Of course the brand of crazy required to dilate and vacuum out a fetus from pregnant woman is right up your alley.
How you are appalled by one and not the other must be a fascinating rationalization to hear.
2:01 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
Boats--I know "choice" isn't your bag. You've made that abundantly clear on other threads.
I'm sure you understand the difference between a legal and consenting medical procedure and the cutting open of a woman's belly and yanking out her wanted fetus.
But maybe you don't.
You do actually have a comment about the legislation? Cuz any more comments that try to turn this into a choice vs no-choice thread are going to be up for deletion from here forward.
Jun 15, '09
Being "crazy", I must take exception, Carla. What the bitch did isn't "crazy", it's a lack of fundamental understanding of what exactly was being done - physically, physiologically, psychologically, hell, even religiously.
She's a dipshit, a fucking retard, and that's not "crazy".
Jun 15, '09
Are we now going to allow people to get drivers licenses at 15 year, 3 months? Are we going to allow them to register to vote at 17 years, 3 months? Drink at 20 years, 3 months? Retire with full benefits at 64 years 3 months?
And, what if you were a preemie?
People have tried, on a number of occasions, to get Pro-Birthers to answer this question: If in a situation where you could save a container of numerous blastocysts or one baby, which would you choose?
They can't answer it because to answer it honestly would show the absurdity of their position--of course there's a difference between a baby that's been born and a developing fetus.
Jun 15, '09
Carla,
So someone kills a "wanted" fetus and there's no reprocussions or consequences for it? I don't understand. And all for the sake of making sure abortion rights, to your liking, stay in tact?
Honestly, help me to understand where you are coming from here.
2:43 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
So someone kills a "wanted" fetus and there's no reprocussions or consequences for it? I don't understand. And all for the sake of making sure abortion rights, to your liking, stay in tact?
Jason--the accused is in custody and probably facing capital murder and a host of other things. How exactly are there no repercussions?
Jun 15, '09
My view of Senator Starr's legislation is this: It's no more wacky or stupid than run of the mill "hate crimes" legislation, which are just "piling on" punishments for otherwise illegal property crimes, assaults, and murders which already have their own significant penalties.
Jun 15, '09
They can't answer it because to answer it honestly would show the absurdity of their position--of course there's a difference between a baby that's been born and a developing fetus.
Funny you should mention it, but I was talking to a pregnant colleague of mine last week and asked her when the developing fetus was due.
Remarkably, without hesitation or a hint of irony, she referred to the lump of tissue as, get this, her daughter. She even produced a convincing 3-D sonogram and referred to the subject of the "photo" as "her baby."
Needless to say, I was taken aback by her insistent employment of oldspeak.
Jun 15, '09
the accused is in custody and probably facing capital murder
I think what Jason is asking is... assume that the victim in this case survived while her unborn child did not. Do we consider that simply an assault charge in that case?
I'm pro-choice. And to me, that means that a woman's CHOICE needs to be respected, whether that consists of a termination OR carrying a child to term.
While I'm sure that all of the pro-choicers here (including myself of course) would be unfathomably opposed to someone being forcibly implanted with an unwanted fetus and being forced to carry it to term...
Should we also be incensed at the prospect of a woman's choice being violated by having a wanted fetus untimely ripped from her? ... Hopefully to the degree that it warrants more than an assault charge.
I think that if we're really honestly defending CHOICE (and not merely advancing abortion rights), then we need to just as agressively defend and respect a woman's choice to carry a child.
Otherwise, we're saying, "We support choice; we just support one choice more than the other."
Having said that, I think Senator Starr's bill is a clumsy attempt to cash in on current events, and if the legislature does create a new crime, it needs to be a carefully measured process that does not set anti-choice precedents.
Of course, some people here may be more for abortion rights than for "choice," but that's one particular policy decision that I can respect even if I don't agree with.
Jun 15, '09
Tom Vail sez: Carla, I'm sure your opposition to this bill based on it being a backdoor attempt to make abortion altogether illegal helps you to understand why many Americans are against a "government option" in the healthcare debate.
Beats me what Carla thinks, but I sure don't follow what in the world this latest Bruce Starr stunt has to with a public option for healthcare.
On that note, read the article by Dr. Atul Gawande in last week's New Yorker about the horrific cost of health care in the US. He specifically considers the case of a border county in south Texas, which has both the lowest per capita income in the entire US, and the nation's highest per capita outlay on medical care.
4:13 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
"My view of Senator Starr's legislation is this: It's no more wacky or stupid than run of the mill "hate crimes" legislation, which are just "piling on" punishments for otherwise illegal property crimes, assaults, and murders which already have their own significant penalties."
Funny enough, in both cases the best course is to use the extenuating circumstances as a guide for severity of charge and punishment. Hate crimes bills are perfectly sensible, given that American justice has a rich tradition of considering the specific circumstances that impact a crime, and punishing accordingly. Is there any material difference between killing a bartender and a cop? No, but we certainly punish harder for a cop killing. Is the victim any more dead if there was malice aforethought as opposed to a spontaneous crime of passion? Nope--but we typically go easier on those caught up in the moment.
Fetal damage/death cases make sense to be handled the same way. I'm sensitive to the idea of the fetus as a separate entity, but not a biologically distinct or independent one. Say you didn't directly harm the fetus, but you slit the umbilical in the middle between mother and child...who did you assault? How far up the cord is "baby," and when does it become "mama?"
Jun 15, '09
Being that the legislative session is nearly over, hasn't the time to introduce new legislation already passed?
Jun 15, '09
So Carla what would have happened if the pregnant woman had somehow survived in this case but the 8 month fetus/baby had died in utero?
No murder, just charge the suspect with a single count of assault?
What if some reluctant soon-to-be-father decides to slip some abortion drug to his (8th month) pregnant girlfriend in order to avoid a lifetime of child support payments?
If the baby is born with severe birth defects then we just have a single count of assault or reckless endangerment (whatever the act of slipping a drug to the mother calls for)?
I'm actually pro-choice (first trimester at least) but I think Carla is way out to lunch in this criticism.
Any right to choose must eventually give way to a right to life as development occurs. There are important stages of development between conception and birth.
Jun 15, '09
Being that the legislative session is nearly over, hasn't the time to introduce new legislation already passed?
The Speaker and President have a lot of discretion at this point in session...
It's perfectly acceptable (though rare) to pass new legislation this late. It's nearly impossible to do so with such a controversial subject.
What Starr CAN do, however, is get the bill introduced into a committee and then make a motion during Senate floor session to have the bill withdrawn from committee directly to the floor (i.e: without the committee acting on the bill).
Such a motion wouldn't pass, but he would be able to say that the "Democrats voted against moving the bill forward" and all the Republican challengers would have another arrow in their quiver come campaign time: That even in the wake of the gruesome murder, the Democrats voted against "Heather's Law" or whatever opportunistic thing they decide to call it.
So yes, it's too late in session to do anything practical or constructive, but NEVER too late to score some cheap points! Ugh.
4:39 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
As our President said, while good people can disagree about reproductive rights, there is much we can agree on and I think this bill is an example of that. While I am highly reluctant to support anything that Sen Starr and Gayle Attebery of Oregon Right to Life champion, this proposal carries out the common decency factor. Anyone who thinks that either of those two characters would propose this without other intentions, would not be paying attention. However, clearly the vast majority of people would recognize that this crime resulted in two deaths. I say that as someone who is very pro-choice. People like Boats, who live in a very literal world will reject nuance, circumstance and context. Its up to the rest of us to acknowledge and grapple with the messy details of life.
I'd hate to see it rushed through this session. Let's give our leaders the time to work this out so that it addresses the core issue for people. A person killed another woman and her baby.
While we're at it, let's discuss this without throwing out insults. Carla, I always appreciate your posts.
Jun 15, '09
Carla,
Not sure if you have kids but I have two, so I'm thinking about this from the perspective of a father and a husband.
I'd want someone held responsible for not only the killing of my wife, but my baby as well. Explain to me how my son or daughter's life was any less valuable at six months in the womb versus 6-years?
Also, let's say the mother lives. Then what happens? We still negate the responsibility in the name of abortion rights? I'm sorry but that's just flat wrong.
"Jason--the accused is in custody and probably facing capital murder and a host of other things. How exactly are there no repercussions?"
You are totally skirting the issue. By not charing the woman with the murder of the child, you are setting a precedent that the unborn child is worthless and has no value. If there's no value, there's no crime.
This is where I call bullshit.
In my opinion (and I'm sure many of you will rake me over the coals), this very issue illuminates the moral problem with abortion in the first place. To avoid charging someone with a heinous crime in the name of protecting abortion rights and your own political ideology is equally as heinous and sickening as the crime itself.
Jun 15, '09
I understand the easy resort to moral relevance made by many people but it's not rooted nuance, circumstance and context, but rather in convenience.
When doing the right thing seems impossibly hard, many people will quit before they even start, looking for the nearest exit.
It's understandable, but it need not be condoned.
Jun 15, '09
reads
6:00 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
Jason:
I understand your point of view. I believe that if a prospective parent's plans to continue a pregnancy to term have been infringed by another, that individual should be compensated for the loss of the pregnancy and the harm suffered.
The prospective parent should bring suit and be compensated under tort law.
Jun 15, '09
"The brand of crazy required to cut a pregnant woman open and pull out her fetus is beyond my ability to comprehend" - Carla
Korena Roberts is the new face of Feminism. She was bold, she was angry, angry against breeders of little pollution machines that will grow up to wage war, pollute Mother Earth, and potentially reproduce. I am working on an "Ode to Korena" that we all can sing in Pioneer Square.
Peace Out
Jun 15, '09
"Jason--the accused is in custody and probably facing capital murder and a host of other things. How exactly are there no repercussions?"
I think he's referring to the possibility of Korena ending up in Bermuda on the beach, contemplating opening a new resturant, like the terrorists from Gitmo.
Just my 2cents. Peace Out.
Jun 15, '09
"So Carla what would have happened if the pregnant woman had somehow survived in this case but the 8 month fetus/baby had died in utero?
No murder, just charge the suspect with a single count of assault?"
You say that like the only charge would be misdemeanor assault. Oregon has four degrees of assault. Assault 1 and 2 are both Measure 11 crimes that have long mandatory sentences (Ten years, I think), with no parole or good time. For that matter, Attempted Murder is also Measure 11.
"What if some reluctant soon-to-be-father decides to slip some abortion drug to his (8th month) pregnant girlfriend in order to avoid a lifetime of child support payments?"
And this one, I'd say, is an argument in favor of Carla's position, not against it. Inducing a miscarriage is a crime, but I doubt a lot of people are going to want to call THAT "murder one". We live in a jail-crazy enough society already without adding more and more crimes with longer penalties.
Jun 15, '09
I find it rather ironic that most of the most vociferous commentators against abortion both here and elsewhere appear to be of the male gender.
Dudes. It's not your body. How about letting those of us who either have the potential of going through the process, or who have gone through the process, speak for ourselves? Too damned much of this debate is being voiced by men.
That said, establishing murder of a fetus as a separate crime has the same feel to me as it does to Carla. And for you men who want to know--yes, I have had a child and gone through childbirth. I made that particular choice. Otherwise, it's NYDB what choices I did or didn't make about my reproductive processes.
Jun 15, '09
"I'd want someone held responsible for not only the killing of my wife, but my baby as well. Explain to me how my son or daughter's life was any less valuable at six months in the womb versus 6-years?"
Um...she was BORM in the meantime? You've actually looked into her eyes, seen her smile, heard her happy little coos, felt her tiny hand squeeze your finger? Seems to me, that adds nearly infinite value to her life. How could it not?
"Also, let's say the mother lives. Then what happens? We still negate the responsibility in the name of abortion rights? I'm sorry but that's just flat wrong."
Yeah, but suppose there's a ticking nuclear bomb, and Agent Bauer HAS to torture the location out of the pregnant woman in time to save a whole city full of lives, and...and...what if you KNEW the fetus was going to grow up to be Hitler...and...oh, never mind. People always hypothetical themselves to death during these discussions. How about we stick to the facts at hand.
(And in fact, the answer to your question is, there's no "consequence-free" about it. He gets Measure 11 sentence for Assault 1 and Attempted Murder, under the law the way it is, with maybe the death of the fetus as an aggravating factor doubling the presumed sentence.)
Jun 15, '09
Torrid Joe, I brought up Ridgeway because Carla seemed to say that the woman accused of this double murder was already getting charged with the murder of the mom. The implication was that one murder charge was sufficient.
Knowing Ridgeway's multiple crimes of murder (at least 52) I used him as an obvious counterpoint. I understand Carla's concerns, but have to wonder how 36 other states have successfully approached the problem of murdering a child ready to be born that was a wanted child.
In my opinion, tort lawsuits and civil court for an unlawful 'taking' is beneath the crime.
Jun 15, '09
Dudes. It's not your body. How about letting those of us who either have the potential of going through the process, or who have gone through the process, speak for ourselves? Too damned much of this debate is being voiced by men.
The retelling of the old parasite v. host argument never gets old. The discussion is about public policy as regards fetal murder.
Why the term "fetal murder" is any more oxymoronic than "gay marriage" remains to be explained in plain English.
11:19 p.m.
Jun 15, '09
"In my opinion, tort lawsuits and civil court for an unlawful 'taking' is beneath the crime."
I agree. I'm OK with it being a separate criminal offense, but again, you can't 'murder' someone without personhood rights, and that's a separate issue entirely (one that of course is the real aim to these bills being introduced). I think desecration of a corpse or animal abuse charges are reasonable models. Corpses were human, (living) animals are alive. But like fetuses, neither should be considered fully vested individual persons. Mike Vick got slapped pretty hard for abusing dogs; even in negligent fetal harm cases you could probably tack on a couple of years for it.
Jun 16, '09
This has been a staple of southern politics for 150 years. They're all for States' rights? Only when they disagree with the Feds!!! The rest of the time they're trying to help the Federal government subsume every individual and collective right.
torrid, like most, your argument sits on a pretty slushy foundation. The fact of the matter is that if another hominid had survived, you wouldn't be able to define "human".
Liberals also abuse the term "murder". It not an emotional way of saying killing. It's illegal killing. The state defines when you can and can't and when you can't and you do, it's murder. The POINT of the term is that the state is making an arbitrary value judgment about the value of life. The first murder statutes in our tradition, can be traced to the Normans. For them "mordre" was charged if a body were found, and it could not be proven to be non-Norman. Our troops, are killers, but not murderers, because the State has sanctioned it. That's not saying it's right, it's saying that symantically, it ain't murder. Ditto for a lot of other cases. It doesn't mean "killing that I find morally reprehensible". You're just arguing. I can see no valid logic, on either side.
The point that neither side cares to debate, is that you both accept the State's killing on a daily basis. You just disagree on what should be codified as murder. Progressive anarchists would hold that the State is morally incapable of making the determination, and should never have the right.
Typepad FUBAR alert: DBD::mysql::st execute failed: Server shutdown in progress at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/Driver/DBI.pm line 153. at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/Driver/DBI.pm line 153 Data::ObjectDriver::Driver::DBI::fetch('TypeCore::ObjectDriver::Driver::DBI=HASH(0x2a9c4357d0)', 'HASH(0xbf92720)', 'ArcheType::M::Banlist', 'HASH(0xc003e60)', 'undef') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/Driver/DBI.pm line 184 Data::ObjectDriver::Driver::DBI::search('TypeCore::ObjectDriver::Driver::DBI=HASH(0x2a9c4357d0)', 'ArcheType::M::Banlist', 'HASH(0xc003e60)', 'undef') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/Driver/GearmanDBI.pm line 32 Data::ObjectDriver::Driver::GearmanDBI::search('Data::ObjectDriver::Driver::GearmanDBI=HASH(0xa3d1c20)', 'ArcheType::M::Banlist', 'HASH(0xc003e60)', 'undef') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/Driver/Partition.pm line 45 Data::ObjectDriver::Driver::Partition::search('ArcheType::ObjectDriver::Driver::UserPartition=HASH(0xc007200)', 'ArcheType::M::Banlist', 'HASH(0xc003e60)', 'undef') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Data/ObjectDriver/BaseObject.pm line 497 Data::ObjectDriver::BaseObject::search('ArcheType::M::Banlist', 'HASH(0xc003e60)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/archetype/lib/ArcheType/JunkFilter.pm line 20 ArcheType::JunkFilter::ANON('ArcheType::JunkFilter=HASH(0xbf65510)', 'My::FakeComment=HASH(0xbf46ac0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/core/lib/TypeCore/Util/JunkFilter.pm line 69 TypeCore::Util::JunkFilter::test_filter('ArcheType::JunkFilter=HASH(0xbf65510)', 'My::FakeComment=HASH(0xbf46ac0)', 'HASH(0x345a010)', 'TypeCore::Util::JunkFilter::Result=HASH(0xbf460c0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/core/lib/TypeCore/Util/JunkFilter.pm line 56 TypeCore::Util::JunkFilter::run_tests('ArcheType::JunkFilter=HASH(0xbf65510)', 'My::FakeComment=HASH(0xbf46ac0)', 'ARRAY(0xc006a90)', 'TypeCore::Util::JunkFilter::Result=HASH(0xbf460c0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/core/lib/TypeCore/Util/JunkFilter.pm line 40 TypeCore::Util::JunkFilter::test('ArcheType::JunkFilter=HASH(0xbf65510)', 'My::FakeComment=HASH(0xbf46ac0)', 'ARRAY(0xc006a90)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/archetype/lib/ArcheType/C/Comment.pm line 2028 ArcheType::C::Comment::check_ban('ArcheType::C::Comment', 'ArcheType::JunkFilter=HASH(0xbf65510)', 'My::FakeComment=HASH(0xbf46ac0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/archetype/lib/ArcheType/Controller/Services/JSONRPC/Comments.pm line 202 eval {...} called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/archetype/lib/ArcheType/Controller/Services/JSONRPC/Comments.pm line 161 ArcheType::Controller::Services::JSONRPC::Comments::comment_create('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 70 Catalyst::Action::execute('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45ff0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 14 Catalyst::Action::ANON('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 eval {...} called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 Catalyst::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45ff0)') called at /usr/local/6a/perl-5.8.5/lib/perl5/5.8.5/NEXT.pm line 75 NEXT::AUTOLOAD('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45ff0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Plugin/MortalForward.pm line 15 Catalyst::Plugin::MortalForward::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45ff0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 58 Catalyst::Action::dispatch('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45ff0)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Base.pm line 46 Catalyst::Base::_ACTION('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 70 Catalyst::Action::execute('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45c90)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 14 Catalyst::Action::ANON('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 eval {...} called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 Catalyst::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45c90)') called at /usr/local/6a/perl-5.8.5/lib/perl5/5.8.5/NEXT.pm line 75 NEXT::AUTOLOAD('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45c90)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Plugin/MortalForward.pm line 15 Catalyst::Plugin::MortalForward::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45c90)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 58 Catalyst::Action::dispatch('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9c45c90)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Dispatcher.pm line 177 Catalyst::Dispatcher::forward('Catalyst::Dispatcher=HASH(0x92193c0)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', '_ACTION') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 290 Catalyst::forward('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', '_ACTION') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Base.pm line 20 Catalyst::Base::_DISPATCH('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 70 Catalyst::Action::execute('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9cf7420)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 14 Catalyst::Action::ANON('PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC=HASH(0x9a98620)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 eval {...} called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1148 Catalyst::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9cf7420)') called at /usr/local/6a/perl-5.8.5/lib/perl5/5.8.5/NEXT.pm line 75 NEXT::AUTOLOAD('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9cf7420)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Plugin/MortalForward.pm line 15 Catalyst::Plugin::MortalForward::execute('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', 'PhenoType::View::C::Services::JSONRPC', 'Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9cf7420)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Action.pm line 58 Catalyst::Action::dispatch('Catalyst::Action=HASH(0x9cf7420)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Dispatcher.pm line 177 Catalyst::Dispatcher::forward('Catalyst::Dispatcher=HASH(0x92193c0)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', '/services/jsonrpc/_DISPATCH') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 290 Catalyst::forward('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)', '/services/jsonrpc/_DISPATCH') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst/Dispatcher.pm line 116 Catalyst::Dispatcher::dispatch('Catalyst::Dispatcher=HASH(0x92193c0)', 'PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1097 Catalyst::dispatch('PhenoType::View=HASH(0xbeaace0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1451 eval {...} called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1423 Catalyst::handle_request('PhenoType::View', 'Apache=SCALAR(0xbeafab0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/cpan-lib/Catalyst.pm line 1948 Catalyst::ANON('PhenoType::View', 'Apache=SCALAR(0xbeafab0)') called at /usr/local/stacksoft/phenotype-2.48.0.6/archetype/lib/ArcheType/VHosts.pm line 238 ArcheType::VHosts::ANON('Apache=SCALAR(0xbeafab0)') called at /dev/null line 0 eval {...} called
11:12 a.m.
Jun 16, '09
"The fact of the matter is that if another hominid had survived, you wouldn't be able to define "human"."
And yet another hominid hasn't survived, so what's your point exactly?
The rest of your post about murder as illegal killing is all well and good, but continues to beg the question of how you can murder or otherwise commit a personal crime against an entity that is not considered a person. You can't "murder" a dog.
Jun 17, '09
The reason that the unborn should be considered a second murder victim are the same medical reasons that a doctor would consider the fetus a second patient
"When a critically ill woman is pregnant, clinical interventions for the mother can have a profound effect on fetal status. It is essential that the fetus be considered as the second patient when developing the plan of care."
Doctors know that the unborn is not just 'a part of the womans body'.
Jun 18, '09
Nike Men Air Force 1 Low