quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Both, you get raped you cant abort, its evidence tampering.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
IF the experts could say the rat poisoning killed the child, then I would say... hang her.
But, from what I have read, they cannot determine cause.

She was trying to kill herself, not the kid, tazzy. What sort of ridiculous stretch is that?
For heaven's sake, if she was just trying to get shot of the pregnancy, gin's a lot less likely to cause her harm than rat poison.

Moon, problem is that at 8 months pregnant, she was well aware of the child inside of her. And I simply cannot condone someone ending that life because they wanted to end their own.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yup, it is, if it aint written that way in the law, it definitely is a violation, and it is not written that way in the law.  

quote:

30-22-5. Tampering with evidence.


A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with
intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

B. Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:

(1) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a capital or first degree felony or a
second degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a third degree felony;

(2) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a third degree
felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony;

(3) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a misdemeanor or a petty
misdemeanor, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; and

(4) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is indeterminate, the person committing
tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

quote:

30-22-5. Tampering with evidence.


A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with
]intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain
an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

C. Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:

(1) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a capital or first degree felony or a
second degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a third degree felony;

(2) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a third degree
felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony;

(3) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a misdemeanor or a petty
misdemeanor, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; and

(4) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is indeterminate, the person committing
tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
IF the experts could say the rat poisoning killed the child, then I would say... hang her.
But, from what I have read, they cannot determine cause.

She was trying to kill herself, not the kid, tazzy. What sort of ridiculous stretch is that?
For heaven's sake, if she was just trying to get shot of the pregnancy, gin's a lot less likely to cause her harm than rat poison.

Moon, problem is that at 8 months pregnant, she was well aware of the child inside of her. And I simply cannot condone someone ending that life because they wanted to end their own.

Something tells me that she wasn't of sound mind and body at the time, tazzy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yup, it is, if it aint written that way in the law, it definitely is a violation, and it is not written that way in the law.  

But, it is written that way in the law. Both parts A and B state the actions when done with specific intents.

Current law (sorry I was unable to figure out a way to get a direct link to Article 22 Section 30-22-5):

quote:

30-22-5. Tampering with evidence.


A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with
intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

B. Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:

(1) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a capital or first degree felony or a
second degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a third degree felony;

(2) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a third degree
felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony;

(3) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a misdemeanor or a petty
misdemeanor, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; and

(4) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is indeterminate, the person committing
tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

As Amended by HB206:

quote:

30-22-5. Tampering with evidence.


A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with
]intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain
an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

C. Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:

(1) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a capital or first degree felony or a
second degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a third degree felony;

(2) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a third degree
felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony;

(3) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is a misdemeanor or a petty
misdemeanor, the person committing tampering with evidence is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; and

(4) if the highest crime for which tampering with evidence is committed is indeterminate, the person committing
tampering with evidence is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

I put the "intent requirement" statements in bold. Doesn't this prevent someone from being prosecuted who wasn't intending to obstruct justice?

an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im torn on this issue.

On the one hand, we have a young woman who was deceived.

On the other, we have a viable pregnancy that she attempted to terminate by killing herself.

While I sympathize with her situation, there are other ways to handle all that happened to her.

IF the experts could say the rat poisoning killed the child, then I would say... hang her.

But, from what I have read, they cannot determine cause.

It all depends on whether you consider a fetus a person...

Do you think the man should be accused as well? Or does he go free completely, in spite of leaving all responsibility of said viable fetus to her?

It wasn't a fetus that died, it was a newborn baby and yes they consider newborns people. Now whether or not the rat poison is what killed it is the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

It all depends on whether you consider a fetus a person...

Do you think the man should be accused as well? Or does he go free completely, in spite of leaving all responsibility of said viable fetus to her?

quote:


My gauge on this is viability. If, by the age of 22 weeks, the infant is still viable and the mother has made no attempt to abort before that, then the fetus deserves some protection provided its existence is not harmful to the life of the mother. And even then, it's the mother's choice to continue with the pregnancy or not.

I lost you there. You say

1) if the fetus is 22 weeks old it should be protected, provided there is not danger to the mother.
2) But then you say, even then the mother can choose to abort the fetus.

Which one?

quote:


In the case, it doesnt appear that she was at risk simply because she was pregnant. She attempted to end her life knowing full well that would end the fetal life as well. Her life was saved. The infants was not.

I do not think the case was ever that she felt that she was at risk. As I understand it, the problem was emotional: she could not face the lies and loss of her man, and could not face bringing up the child alone. She wanted to die, but lived. Tragic, as I see it.

quote:

However, the ability to establish cause of death is necessary.

Are you now talking legal terms?

quote:


As for the man being charged? Absolutely not. He did nothing to harm either the mother or the child. He simply walked. He would be no more responsible than if she had not been pregnant and she committed suicide because of the ending of a relationship.
Thats not a chargeable offence.

I am not talking legal terms, and I thought you weren't either, saying she should be hanged, which is not done today.

But the clear consequence of what you say is that there is no father to a child, only a mother, and only the mother is responsible.

I cannot understand that. IMO both the male and the female is equally responsible for a child, or a fetus. They both made it. So when the man walked away, he also was partly responsible for what happened, or indeed for what would have happened had the fetus become a living child.

As I see it, if a woman is alone and she cannot take care of the child, she should abort it. No child should be born unwanted.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Darlin.... Labor and Delivery IS my real world experience

Try again

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Thanks for the links LillyBoPeep.
This legislation is grotesque:
Here's what H.B. 206 says:
"A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.
B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-evidence-tampering/1862767/
So having an abortion after being raped or subjected to incest would now count as "tampering with evidence" - a criminal offence !!!
Is there no depth too low for these lunatics ?

A. Stipulates what actions are considered "tampering" when done "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another." B includes "ith the intent to destroy evidence of the crime." The intent behind the action is required in determining the applicability of the definition.

Could it be abused and used to arrest women getting abortions from rape/incest? Yes, it could. Would it stand up in a court of law? I'm going to guess that it wouldn't, since the intent isn't there and Prosecution would have to prove that it was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
[quote0ORIGINAL: Desideri_Scuri
Something tells me that she wasn't of sound mind and body at the time, tazzy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
"[Women] are no longer allowed to be mentally ill or suffering while pregnant, even though the hormones can render you both and you have no control over that."
http://www.politicususa.com/biology-triggers-state-surveillance-control-humans.html
I am deeply troubled by this extract from the OP. While its precise meaning is unclear, it seems to be saying that mental illness or suffering while pregnant is not a legal defence under the feticide laws. Is this a correct interpretation?
If it is a correct interpretation, my reaction is that it is preposterous. More so as in this case Shuai's suicide attempt tells me that the balance of her mind was clearly unstable. Given the circumstances - Shuai was pregnant and abandoned callously by the father of her child - it is clear that Shuai was not in a position to make balanced and responsible decisions at the time in question.
Could someone please tell me I am mistaken in this interpretation?

Hell, she could be in for an awful lot of therapy regardless of the outcome of her trial.

But, there was no proof offered by the author, and there were an awful lot of opinions in the article. She brought up South Carolina being one of the first to pass fetal safety laws but only having charged one man while arrested over 300 women. Now, that's incredulous on first blush, but there is no link, and no proof that the 300+ women weren't guilty and no mention of the outcome of the SC guy's charges.

Further:

quote:

The personhood police don’t care if a man kills a preborn while violently attacking the female carrier, but if a woman causes harm by accident, they lock her up. Any questions about intent? You are a uterus, and it sucks to be you in America.

Scott Peterson, anyone?

If the opinions presented by the author are true, it is an abuse of the law. But, I think the truth lies somewhere between what she has presented and reality.

quote:

I lost you there. You say

1) if the fetus is 22 weeks old it should be protected, provided there is not danger to the mother.
2) But then you say, even then the mother can choose to abort the fetus.

Which one?

quote:

I do not think the case was ever that she felt that she was at risk. As I understand it, the problem was emotional: she could not face the lies and loss of her man, and could not face bringing up the child alone. She wanted to die, but lived. Tragic, as I see it.

quote:

Are you now talking legal terms?

quote:

I am not talking legal terms, and I thought you weren't either, saying she should be hanged, which is not done today.

quote:

IF the experts could say the rat poisoning killed the child, then I would say... hang her.

quote:

But the clear consequence of what you say is that there is no father to a child, only a mother, and only the mother is responsible.

quote:

I cannot understand that. IMO both the male and the female is equally responsible for a child, or a fetus. They both made it. So when the man walked away, he also was partly responsible for what happened, or indeed for what would have happened had the fetus become a living child.

quote:

As I see it, if a woman is alone and she cannot take care of the child, she should abort it. No child should be born unwanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

She was trying to kill herself, not the kid, tazzy.

Well if she thought the kid would be okay, there's a fucking Darwin award in her future.

K.

It's unlikely she gave a flying fuck about the kid one way or the other. That's as much of a stretch as tazzy's point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Thanks for the links LillyBoPeep.

This legislation is grotesque:
Here's what H.B. 206 says:

"A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.
B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-evidence-tampering/1862767/

So having an abortion after being raped or subjected to incest would now count as "tampering with evidence" - a criminal offence !!!

Is there no depth too low for these lunatics ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desideri_Scuri
Something tells me that she wasn't of sound mind and body at the time, tazzy.

I would agree, and that still needs to be determined. Yet, it also takes a massive amount of rat poisoning to kill a human.... unless that human is a fetus.

I'm not completely sure what your meaning is. That can be interpreted as she intentionally ate only enough rat poison to get herself sick, but still kill the baby. Was that what you were saying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, I am not sure of her state of mind. Is it a possibility? Yes. But no one knows for sure. There isnt enough information about this case that to simply say what I did.
Rat poisoning is like heparin. Thins the blood out. A little and it can save a life. Too much and all the clotting factors go away, leading to massive hemorrhaging. During a pregnancy, we are also dealing with the placenta, which, under normal conditions is a pretty protective barrier. Add a substances like heparin and the problems begin.
This part is mostly speculation. I have yet to find a reason for the c-section, the 8 day wait, or the type of rat poisoning she ingested. To me, it sounds like they took a conservative approach and waited.. in the end having no choice but to operate.
I will be very interested to hear the outcome.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Darlin.... Labor and Delivery IS my real world experience

Try again

so you are in the poisoned baby delivery business huh? doubt it.