January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
I’m having trouble being able to post my comments and I’m not sure where this will wind up but, hopefully, our new contributor – Dan – will see it.
Really appreciate your thoughts, Dan, on this tough issue. Really interested in the laws you propose. One problem, however. As history has shown, the laws on the books make no difference. If you make abortion illegal in this country again, women will still have abortions – with often deadly soncequences…..So, in many ways this is just an academic exercise. Do you agree?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm
The laws on the books will never stop abortion in the same way they don’t stop murders and theft so I hardly see why this is a problem for me to address. I do not plan to eliminate all abortions besides the ones I’ve provided for in the legislative proposal.
In the past it was true that women were so desperate they would end up having unsafe procedures. This was at a time where medical technology was much less advanced and many died from unhygienic practices. I hardly see us returning to that considering I have accounted for the great majority of cases where a woman would be so desperate as to choose an illegal abortion and even if she does it will be a lot safer today.
A study in 2004 (I posted it in the earlier thread too) asked women to list the reasons they elected to have an abortion. The reasons that would make a woman almost certain to seek out a back-alley abortion include possible problems affecting health of fetus (13% of respondents), concerns about her own health (12% of respondents), was a victim of rape (1% of respondents). Having an abortion due to many of those concerns would be excluded from the law I proposed.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Am i reading you right!
So you disallow 84% of the reasons women would get a “back alley abortion.” And you think that 16% is a big gain by allowing it.
Also, the back alley abortions where women were harmed the most,
Please support your claim that modern technology has gotten rid of the majority of ‘That’ risk.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Where did you get the 84% of the reasons women get a “back alley abortion” from?
In Europe number of deaths recorded from “unsafe abortions” is approximately 1 in 8000. Obviously in a continent like Africa it is much higher, approximately 1 in 150. This is because advances in medical technology and overall safer medical practices have significantly reduced the risk of death in developed countries.
I got my statistics from the WHO report, unsafe abortion, global and regional estimates of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Why do you focus on Mortality and disregard morbidity?
No one that knows what they are doing does not assess morbidity in conjunction. Why have you purposefully ignored this?
Morbidity typically occurs at an exponential rate compared to mortality.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I have not disregarded morbidity but the evidence so far is clear. Less women die in developed nations and that’s because we have more advanced medical practices.
It is reasonable to infer from that fact that the morbidity rate as a result of “unsafe abortions” is likewise lower due to more advanced medical practices.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Do you make this up as you go along. It is well known that mortality and morbidity in illegal abortion come from second trimester abortion. The medical advances of the abortion pill do not apply here.
So exactly what are you talking about.
Please release your ego and reveal real knowledge.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Who said anything about the abortion pill? Clearly the rate is lower because women in Europe are still able to obtain safer abortions than women in Africa even in these “unsafe abortion” cases.
That’s why the mortality rate in “unsafe abortion” cases is lower.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Dan,
you are the official retard of this site.
Every site needs a jester, you are presently this sites moronic jester.
Somebody said you were smart?
You have an enormous ego.
That ego cannot let go when you are proven wrong.
You still do not answer questions. You are basically a no brain waste of time, like most pro lifers. Rogelio is pretty cool, I wish he would chime in.
Dan all you have done is tell us that you are another stupid lawyer.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:08 pm
This Dan needs the Hammer. He is clearly in my opinion so lacking of knowledge he cannot begin to defend his dumb comments. How strange to be so egotistical that one cannot back off a bit and reveal where they are wrong. A sad state of affairs for anyone, especially Dan – he needs the Hammer Time!!!!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm
You hurled quite a few insults there, but please do tell me what you really think of me haha
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Dan,
you are what you are,
I am not going to change that.
Yes you will probably go out into the world and be a thieving lawyer.
But there is not much I can do about that.
Although you do deserve the Hammer Time.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I appreciate that you understand that. I’m not here to change minds either, just to debate.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Dan,
How does the civil rights of the woman to bodily integrity and autonomy factor in your legal schema? Does pregnancy negate her rights?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Dang, I wish I could word a question like you Kate!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm
It takes talent, July. How about this one?
Dan,
How does a woman’s right to bodily integrity (or autonomy) factor in your legal schema? Does pregnancy negate her rights?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm
In the circumstances of pregnancy she is not free from liability if she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of the unborn individual.
Pregnancy does not negate her fundamental right to refuse any medical treatment but I contest that she ever had the right to obtain a medical drug or procedure on demand.
In fact that is one of my major criticisms of the Roe v Wade decision which inferred a right to a specific medical drug or procedure from a right to privacy in medical decisions. She has privacy in her medical decisions i.e. any legal abortion would be between her and her doctor alone. However, that does not logically infer that abortion has to legal in all circumstances in the first place.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 8:36 am
Kate,
This pro lifer can’t answer a question.
Pro Lifers even think his claims are terrible.
He is no match for your depth of experience and knowledge about women’s issues.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Thought I’d add a visual to help us understand what the so-called prolifers are clamoring about—the fertilized egg….note the arms and legs, the blood pulsing through the heart, the eyes, the ears…..
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=fertilized+egg&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1317&bih=721&tbm=isch&tbnid=NR6q2pM9Qb1MRM:&imgrefurl=http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-conception&docid=o0PhPbLJzmg_3M&imgurl=http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/conception_slideshow/getty_rm_illustration_of_egg_implanting_in_uterus.jpg&w=493&h=335&ei=gLolT-ioGIW30AGvsqXVCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=206&vpy=207&dur=748&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=141&ty=97&sig=108823277377272440352&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=228&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Sorry, Dan, I’m a little dense. Under your proposed law, would it be legal for a woman to have an abortion if she were raped or the victim of incest?
What law school did you go to (or are going to?). I dropped out after one year 🙂
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Kate, you forgot to mention the color of the eyes!.. . . .
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm
What I dont get, Dan, is if you believe abortion is killing a baby, murder, etc. then why is it okay to kill or murder a baby that was conceived during a rape? If you are so intent on saving babies, what does the method of conception have to do with anything??
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm
I didn’t say it was a complete justification did I? I just said that having an abortion due to MANY of those concerns would be excluded from the law I proposed, not all those concerns.
In fact if you look at the I proposed I did not account for rape at all but no doubt the state of mind of the rape victim who elects to abort will be treated as a mitigating factor at sentencing.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm
at the law I proposed*
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Dude, you are confusing the hell out of me:
You wrote:
‘be defined as a born human individual that has attained 3 years of age. ‘
So which way is it? Is an individual 3 years old (I am not sure where you got that one), or unborn?
What’s the Deal Dan?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:13 pm
A natural person is a born human individual of 3 years of age because that is generally the point when infants attain self-awareness which is a major capacity reflecting personhood.
An entity can obviously be an “individual” but not yet a natural person e.g. a newborn or the unborn.
Hope that clears it up.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm
No.
‘be defined as a born human individual that has attained 3 years of age. ‘
Again, if it is three years of age, i can’t find the integrity of consistency in your law.
Really confusing. Maybe you can make it better?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:15 pm
That’s just when infants generally become natural persons. If you can think of a more rational cut off point than please present it.
The current law that bases natural personhood on whether or not you’ve exited a uterus is patently absurd. It means a 24 week fetus that is born is a natural person but a 35 week fetus that is unborn is not. Completely nonsensical even if it is convenient for legislators.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Seems like you keep missing the question.
Maybe I just cannot say it right.
I don’t care about the arbitrary nature of personhood, although that is stated and you keep bringing it up.
It is your Law, and Individual. And it is written does not make sense. It has not made sense to almost everyone I have read here, so by consensus of opinion you benefit us by clarifying better.
It is unclear Still, what you are bring to say.
If a new born is a natural person, then how does that reconcile in your “law.”
You also, as far as I can tell have avoided the questions of how you would pragmatically deal with the massive burden on society to incarcerate sooo many people, and take care of their children. Please stop being evasive and be responsible and answer a question. It is getting tiring pulling “teeth form you.”
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:37 pm
As a matter of the law I have proposed a newborn is not a natural person. I’m not sure if I can put that any more clearly than that. If you are being wilfully obtuse that’s your problem not mine. It would constitute a separate offense of infanticide to kill an infant unlawfully.
Actually until someone substantiates the assertion (with verifiable empirical evidence) that it would incarcerate “sooo many people” then its not something I have to address yet. The burden remains on the poster who made the claim that it would result in the incarceration of 10s of millions of people.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Oh and I’m waiting for your suggestion on an alternative point in time or development for natural personhood if you have one.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:50 pm
The incarceration rate has already been justified and triangulated by many people. By ignoring that fact you are being obtuse.
Either choose to address the reality or potential reality of the problem, as you cannot know it will not happen, or be known to be a charlatan. I would prefer you support your position because you do not sound like a dummy.
Again no one is understanding your “law.” Your definitions are not standard, they are vague and ambiguous, and you consistently evade questions. So get down to the real basics. If you do not, you just appear like another bonehead pro lifer on this site, even though you are different. You write like a pseudo intellectual.
1) It sounds like you want to deny women Birth control
2) Their civil Liberties
3) Do you believe a fertilized egg has rights greater than the mother that harbors it . . .
You have been so obtuse, no one here seems to actually get what your position really is.
Maybe it is the lawyer in you to be vague and avoid the real questions as typical lawyers do when they on a routine basis perform professional Unethical misconduct in court as an officer of the court. But as a law student it seems like you would be too young to already learn that, I guess they teach it early.
So be genuine?
Is that too much too ask?
Address how will incarcerate millions of people worldwide. The math is easy:
A well known % of women will continue to pursue abortions whether they are legal or not. Since you have given a life sentence, over time this will add up up to a to of women in jail and keep growing. If you deny this fact then you are not a credible source of discussion at all. Even if you deny the potential for this. It has been told to you this happens right now in countries where abortion is illegal. Are you moron? What else do you need?
Shakespeare was so right.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Lawyers are scum compared to other professions by percent.
I have three lawyers in jail for different incidences.
Although I know nothing about law, I had to read the Judicial Admin book for the state and recuse a Judge and got him kicked off the bench because he did not have – – – – – Judgment. If he were a Doctor he would suffer a severe Malpractice case that he would lose by settlement. But since lawyers create safety harbors for themselves this cannot happen.
Endless stories about lawyers and their unprofessional misconduct, perjury, lying to the judge as an officer of the court, it is just endless. They mostly are the real dirtbag profession. And that is sad.
Dans behavior is showing us the early development of these attributes in my opinion.
In law, there is no justice – Just Winners and Losers.
It seems we would be better off with swords and duels than with lawyers that destroy peoples lives and incomes.
I have asked hundreds of lawyers, and half say that half of lawyers are real criminals. The problem is they are not all talking about the same half.
Maybe Dan is the rare, ethical Lawyer to be. So far he does not write like one. He writes like the typical scum lawyer to be. And he will make buckets of cash for his three years of extra knowledge.
The whole system is screwed up. And these lawyers mostly are our dirtbag politicians. No wonder there are so many problems.
Dan – Thanks for showing us again what real lawyers are all about.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:21 pm
@ July: the incarceration rate of 10s of millions as a result of my legislative proposal has been claimed but no evidence has been provided to back it up. I guess its just so much easier to claim it without having to substantiate the positive claim.
I admit that its plausible that over 100s if not 1000s of years the incarceration rate could get into those sorts of numbers but within a couple of years? In order for such a bold claim to be validated it requires positive evidence. If you don’t wish to provide it then I can only assume you don’t have any evidence.
I have provided evidence for my positive claims when requested but none of you have provided a single shred when required. Instead you just keep validating each other’s views and giving yourselves 5 stars.
Anyway I hope to debate issues with you further if you’re inclined to.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:29 pm
@ Jacob: people say that until they have a legal issue they need resolving 🙂 you’ll happily part with your money if and when the time comes lol
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:53 pm
What is LOL mean?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm
July,
even the the Pro Lifers that are not at the extreme are pretty dumb. This has been made pretty obvious here.
This guy cannot accept an answer that challenges how ego.
Again, a prolifer. And a heinous lawyer to be on top of that. Oy, what miserable combination!
He was no match for anyone in wit. He probably is barely out of his teens, keeps admitting he knows nothing of abortion by his comments. He is getting boring by his own evasion.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Seriously,
this bonehead wants to get rid of birth control?
And does not think that is a problem to society?
Does not think there will be millions of unwanted forced pregnancies that add over time? We got ourselves here a real genius – Not.
When they cannot answer the question it is obvious what the person (Dan) truly is. Just not capable of a discussion if fact. He denies fact out of his own convenience. He is like the crazy pro lifers more and more by each comment.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Maybe I’m just not a pure consequentialist utilitarian.
I accept that there will be more unwanted children, I have no delusions about that. There are unwanted children now with the right to choose abortion because there are so many irresponsible people out there.
If were truly so moral to ensure there are less unwanted kids then why not just forcibly sterilize people or forcibly abort children who we know the parents will not take care of? Oh does that now offend your moral sensibilities because it isn’t principled and right to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will?
Well it offends mine and it just so happens that abortion on demand offends me too. Your specific value judgements are no more valid than mine unless you are a pure consequentialist utilitarian. Then I’d at least say you’re being coldly rational.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm
It is official.
Dan is retarded. He will not admit that the overwhelming mountain os evidence in the Green and the Grey Journal – the main peer reviewed research for decades reveal the issue of illegal abortions to be exactly as decried here. As well most other reputable Journals from Lancet, Nature, Science, etc. reveal the same.
Does Dan pose ideas that he knows nothing about – yes.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm
So Dan,
Stop being the typical lawyer in tangoing and answer the question.
Do you not get how transparently stupid you appear to everyone that reads your uniformed crap?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Oh I am under no delusion that you dislike me because I do not agree with your views.
I’ve already admitted that in the past the rate of illegal abortions and the harm associated was horrific (and remains horrific in undeveloped nations). As I explained that rate will not be repeated in the United States because the legislative proposal would cover many of the reason women would be that desperate that they would seek out a highly unsafe back-alley abortion. As the stats I provided to July show the mortality rate in “unsafe abortions” in developed nations has been substantially reduced by advances in medicine.
Apart from that I’m afraid there is nothing more to discuss.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
Dan is not liked because he cannot defend his position.
Keeps changing it.
Now he wants to take Heroine dealers out of jail and decriminalize it?
If it were up to Dan, society would fall apart.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Why do you call people irresponsible?
What is the basis of that judgement?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:07 pm
A crackhead who has no intention of looking after their child and will allow their partners to abuse the child is irresponsible for not taking the necessary steps like birth control or voluntary sterilization. If you don’t want a child then take those preventive steps.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm
So you use the most extreme example of irresponsibility?
Are you a deity?
I doubt it.
Before you judge others irresponsibility look to your own on this site, constantly misstating fact. That is a heinous irresponisibility.
Denying women of birth control? A responsible action? That would make you the cause of irresponsibility. You are a repulsive piece of garbage.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Well will you do what it takes to prevent such irresponsibility and harm to unwanted children? Will you call for forcible sterilizations and abortions of these people we know will continue to have unwanted children and neglect and abuse them?
Then I don’t see what business you have judging me either. Have a good day.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Dan,
You want to take away the civil liberties of women and children, yet it appears you have done nothing to help children?
You are really Disgusting. If you have time to post why dont you adopt a child like I have?
As one who is Pro Life you sicken me.
Law school must be real hard to have the time to post as you do (obviously sarcastic).
Law students don’t have much studying to do. The reality is that they just cheat their clients routinely and are the detritus of society by the pinion of most of society.
The greatest irony would be is if you end up being a Family Law attorney. The only category worse than the Personal Injury Attorneys. Complete criminals on average.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:39 pm
As I posted at the bottom of the page at least I understand why the person who invited me here from facebook “abortion.com” insisted on knowing my credentials.
Taking snipes at someone’s character and credentials is not an argument, it is utterly childish.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Does not change that you are stupid pro lifer that cannot defend your cause and lie constantly.
That is the bottom line despite your ridiculous allegations.
You should be ashamed of yourself you misogynist.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm
And now apparently I hate women eh.. wow.
Anyway I guess there is nothing further to say between us apart from insulting me further so I’ll ignore you from now on.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:40 am
Dan,
Do you seriously want to legalize Heroin?
And let Heroin dealers out of Jail?
Is that true?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:41 am
Dan,
Is that true?
That would be one of the wildest opinions we have ever seen here.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm
1) Yes I want to legalize heroin.
2) No I do not want to let heroin dealers out of prison just heroin users. Heroin users are better off in rehab than prison IMO.
I think there was a misunderstanding when I pointed out that the number of drug dealers in prison would end up at virtually nil under my proposed drug reforms.
By legalizing the drugs the dealers rely on and undercutting them through State depot sale there will eventually be no way to manufacture or harvest privately to make a profit. They will be run out of business.
Of course those dealers currently serving time will remain in prison until the end of their sentences but I am sure there will be very few to take their place in prison because they won’t bother trying to sell those drugs illegally any more.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Dan, how about this definition for personhood: “The life form which begins with conception will be granted personhood at the time the principal caretaker deems herself its mother. If born, its personhood will be the responsibility of the state, absent a declared mother.”
That should take the squiffiness out of the three-year-old personhood issue.
By the way, you never got back to me about your (or any other individual’s) responsibility for the welfare of the fetus whose life you insist on prolonging. Joshua Komisarkovsky, slayer of three family members in Ct., is pleading for mercy on the basis of extreme childhood abuse. Where are you for the next Joshua you want born?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Personhood is derived from existing capacities. You are either a natural person according to your existing capacities or you’re not.
You have not explained why it is a person when the “principal caretaker” deems herself its mother. To base a test purely on whether the “principal caretaker” deems herself its mother is arbitrary and does not appear to be rationally defensible.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Dan,
you still have not answered most the questions asked of you.
Why?
Who are you to define personhood?
Are you the great arbiter of personhood?
Why do presume to try and legislate another’s body?
Deny her birth control?
Dude, you are another crazy. You haven’t gone religious crazy as far as I can read, but you are a crazy.
When you mature, perhaps you will get it.
It is clear you are so “wet behind the ears” especially in your knowledge and ability to answer a question.
When you evade questions, we all realize what you are as a human being. And that is not a pleasant remark.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:26 pm
If you have a more rational definition of personhood then provide it.
It doesn’t matter who I am or what I’ve done, only the validity of the arguments I raise and you raise matter.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:51 pm
That is the point.
You and no one else can define this. it is arbitrary.
Unless you are willing to call upon a God to set the Gold standard.
Are you willing to do that?
I sense you are not.
The default is the need of the mother, and her civil liberty, granted her in the promises of our founding documents of constitutional law.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Well that’s a cop out because we all AT LEAST accept that everyone posting here is a natural person. I would also be very surprised if someone here is arguing that a child over the age of 3 years is not a natural person.
Now whether a newborn is a natural person or whether the unborn is a natural person depends upon providing a rationally defensible position. I’m afraid exiting a uterus isn’t going to cut.
However, this is mostly a distraction. The more fundamental issue is whether it is necessary to be a natural person in order to have legal protection. Clearly it isn’t necessary. We protect animals from cruel treatment for example and we have laws on the books in States that makes it a criminal offense to imbibe cocaine during pregnancy (see The State of South Carolina v Cornelia Whitner) and that makes it murder to kill the unborn (see section 187 of the California Penal Code). Now obviously these laws do not apply specifically to abortion until Roe v Wade is overturned but the point even if we cannot define personhood accurately we can still protect the unborn in law.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Dan, let me explain before July does: We are all interdependent. When I leave my tuberculosis untreated and transmit it to you by coughing on you, I bear some responsibility for your decline and death. When I use my driving privilege to drive drunk and injure you, I bear some responsibility for that. And when I deny you the power to control the size of your family and drive up your school taxes and day care, meals, housing, medical, etc. costs, I bear some responsibility for that as well.
So, what is your responsibility toward each child you insist should have been born? Or are you another who is driven by aborticentrism, so fixated on abortion that you cannot care for real human life?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Responsible, I would give up, Dan is another crazy pro lifer of some bizarre sort.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Your examples are not analogous. If I cause the death of another individual when I have knowingly impaired my ability to drive safely of course I am culpable. If I leave my tuberculosis untreated, besides it being irrational, I bear some moral responsibility when I knowingly spread it around. Btw I think transmitting something like HIV would have been a better example.
However, nowhere have I unreasonably deprived the power of a person to control the size of their family. Ever heard of birth control? Ever heard of voluntary sterilization? I would in fact provide pecuniary inventives for any person who chose to sterilize themselves.
I also advocate payments to people with children who are struggling financially not because I am morally liable for this as a penalty but because it is the right thing to do in of itself.
Spare me the sanctimony, no one here is willing to do what is required to achieve the “greater good” all the time. We have our moral sensibilities to think of. It isn’t right to force women to be sterilized or to abort even if we KNOW that their children will be horribly abused and neglected when they are born. If you’re willing to do that then I’d at least admit you’re more coldly logical than me.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:02 pm
But Dan would force Pregnancy and Labor on women.
What a Hypocrite!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:05 pm
So I’m a hypocrite for “forcing” pregnancy on women? How does that work?
Do you have evidence that I would not accept pregnancy being forced on myself whilst expecting it to be forced on others? lol
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Just weird.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Who here is willing to do what it takes to achieve the “greater good” all the time?
You all claim you are so much more moral because you’re preventing unwanted children being born who will be neglected and abused yet we know it still happens. Unwanted children are still born into a life of suffering and more importantly we could prevent it by forcibly sterilizing and forcibly inducing abortions so why not?
If you make the value judgement that it is not right to prevent harm by violating bodily integrity of women then on what basis can you judge me for my value judgement that it is also not right to prevent harm by killing the unborn and depriving it of its interest in its future experiences?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:17 am
Dan, your fetus’ “interest” in its future experience is an invention, one which you invented not for its benefit but for yours in advancing an argument.
The fetus has no knowledge of a past or future, of choice or possibility; those are created by another. The only person who can act to create such interest, thereby implying a future with choice and autonomy, is the primary caretaker, i.e., the pregnant woman. You as a lawgiver cannot– you cannot protect the fetus from the ills of smoking, malnutrition or substance abuse– unless you undertake a surrogate pregnancy, and thereby may assume the power of creating an interest for it.
While your law allows for birth control, it does not allow for abortion as an option when birth control fails– and you then open yourself to charges that you have been responsible for the birth of another child at risk for all those things unwanted children experience. As you can see from the reactions of some posting here, it makes you look like you don’t care whether that child turns out to be a felon, another Ted Bundy, Eileen Wuorinen, Henry Lee Otis or even Paris Hilton– but you insisted that it be born.
As I’ve said, it makes you look like you would like this law passed for your benefit– “I’m so clever, look what I have done!”– rather than for the benefit of a humanoid being who needs at least seven years of nurture in order to start on a path to a life of exercising vital powers in settings affording them scope (the Socratic definition of happiness). You come across as the legal equivalent of a deadbeat dad.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:27 am
Why is knowledge of a past or future a necessary prerequisite for an interest in your future? A newborn has no knowledge of a past or future yet absolutely has an interest in their future even if they are not actively taking interest in it (in case you thought I meant actively taking interest).
Of course I cannot protect the unborn from all harm in the same way I cannot protect a child from second hand smoke or a parent not giving them proper nutrition so what is your point again?
I don’t think we have the right to kill the unborn just because they might turn out to be another Ted Bundy in the same way as we couldn’t kill a born infant even if they might turn out to be another Ted Bundy.
I’m not a consequentialist utilitarian and I doubt you are to the extent that you would start advocating infanticide of a possible Ted Bundy but perhaps you are willing to do what it takes to bring about the “greater good” all the time. You tell me.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm
It is very clear that Dan appears to be lacking in knowledge about abortion.
By his own admission he has no intimate knowledge of abortion in the routine setting. How does one create vast opinions without this knowledge? Has he ever counseled 100 women to understand the issue? It sounds like he has not. That is an ego to large for an opinion.
His life experiences have not been revealed to show that he has knowledge of a women’s need for abortion.
He is ambiguous in terms and definitions. For an impending lawyer, not reassuring, however, standard.
He routinely does not answer questions.
Dan seems to want to get rid of birth control and the morning after pill and the abortion pill, things desirous of most women in society.
He has no understanding of morbidity and mortality as proven over and over in his statements as a F(x) of the gestational age and sigmoidal shape curve of the desire for illegal abortions that is presently a fact in this present real time world. A fact that he continues to deny.
It seems Dan is not to be taken seriously. Another farcical fake person who pretends to know something they do not.
A pseudo intellectual at best, who knows a few extra vocabulary words.
So sad, as this is the profile of the typical Pro Lifer.
Dan, just work on your over billing, double billing and unprofessional misconduct that will be the staple of your future profession. You will succeed well there it seems that you have developed many of these talents already. You are precocious in this regard.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Jeez I didn’t say anywhere I wanted to get rid of all birth control. Find a single quote where I actually said that.
Is most of what’s written a pre-drafted response for pro-lifers when you no longer want to debate them or something?
The creator set this up as though he/she wanted an honest debate by inviting me here from facebook and asked for my “credentials” in what appeared to be good faith.
I turn up you just end up launching personal attacks at my character and my choice of profession and make asinine self-validating comments so you can all sit back satisfied that once again the pro-choice mob has won the day.
Pathetic.
I’m sorry to the people here who did want an honest debate and at least tried to understand my position even if they did not agree with me. I truly appreciate that 🙂
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:42 pm
You did say you would get rid of birth control that caused an abortion.
Are you denying that now?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm
I’m not denying that I would heavily RESTRICT drugs that induce abortions because it is evident from the legislative proposal I wrote.
I am denying that I would abolish all abortion-related drugs altogether.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Are you really as dumb as you write?
How could you be an honors student?
Can we talk to your professors?
Your laws are the dumbest I have ever seen attempted for abortion.
You asked for evidence, now by your admission you have it.
The vast majority of birth control that 99+% women desire falls into the category you want to get rid of you idiot.
More unwanted babies that you still will tell how you will take care of. And endless other questions that you use the same lawyer technique to try and get out of, but every one here (except the pro lifers – and they have even disavowed you) knows what a fake you are by this last admission of yours.
Admittedly, you get credit for being honest about being dishonest – but that is really wierd.
You still have not said how you will handle the multitude of incarcerated women, whatever the number is. Or take care of their children. What do you think the number will be after 40 years of your law? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Whatever the number, how are you going to fund their incarceration? And fund taking care of their children and support the harm you have caused their children by taking their mother away?
Lawyer lack of empathy – a chronic illness in your profession you sick f**k.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:03 pm
All current abortion-related drugs will exist but it will be restricted. That is my position, I didn’t ask you to approve of it.
Well since you asked about incarceration I shall tell you. Legalizing all illegal “recreational” drugs for use and making all those drugs for sale at a state depot.
By undercutting the dealers it will destroy the black market for illegal drugs and starve them of their major source of revenue. More importantly we clear up a lot of space in prisons so there you go.
Any profit from state sale can be pumped into rehabilitation and looking after unwanted children. That’s the plan anyway. Like I said you don’t have to approve but it works.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Oh and by the way go f**k yourself, I don’t have to take your cr@p.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Show the numbers how it works . . .
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Dan now shows he is not so diplomatic after all – he is a testy little lack of knowledge cretin.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:11 pm
@ Carla: thanks for asking so politely, its refreshing 🙂
OK so in the United States drug offenders constituted 53% of the total federally sentenced prisoners in 2007.
They also constituted 19.5% of all state sentenced prisoners.
The estimated prison population at that time was 2.3 million.
My source is The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme “the incarceration of drug offenders”.
So its a fair few that we’d no longer have to house.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Dan cannot take the pressure of being wrong, his Ego is battling his lack of ability to support his opinion, and it is crumbling under his future mollusk lawyer conduct.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm
I love when someone is not intelligent enough to reply to the f**k your self insult by just replying the same. A real sign that they lack any wit.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm
@ Iliad. Heh you’re just a poser who attempts miserably to psychoanalyse others but ends up projecting your shortcomings onto them.
Have a nice life.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Dan,
as a member of the Personhood Movement here in the proud state of Colorado I please ask you to stop. You embarrass us, and your thoughts and opinions do not hold any merit in the ProLife community.
You are harming us and making us look foolish to these horrid pro Aborts. Will you please stop?
You do not have the ability to battle their deep knowledge of the abortion industry, And that harms our cause.
Will you stop? Please?
You only hurt our efforts to save all the babies, from frozen embryos, to every baby that is fertilized, even if they are sick, There is no justification to take the baby’s life as you seem to have suggested!
Please stop. Your maverick ranting will only hurt us in the end!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I’m sorry I don’t hold irrational pro-life views.
If you’re in the business of changing minds then good luck to you. I’m not, I just debate things and try to discover the most valid position to hold.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm
The problem is that you do hold very fringe ProLife views I hope you are smart enough to NOT deny that simple fact.
What happened to answering why you behaved so deplorably the other day on the other site, yet try and maintain a different demeanor here? It really appears schizoid to the average reader. Can you understand that perspective? Yes or No?
Please respond on the next page as this page is getting to Long for one’s average browser to load quickly at DSL speeds.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:26 am
Dan’s holding up a mirror, Angela. Don’t things look different when somebody else is saying them for you?
I appreciate his willingness to employ his talents to advance a cause he might not personally believe in. That’s what good lawyering is all about. He certainly is suffering for it here, but it’s in your behalf. You should thank him.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Dan, you said recreational drugs.
Are you sure your numbers are right? I’m pretty sure they are wrong.
And maybe it is just what you define as recreational?
Do consider crack, heroine, met, etc., recreational?
And bigtime dealers of recreational drugs that are ILLEGAL, you want to let them out of jail for selling drugs to children?
Help me understand your thoughts and your highly disputed numbers.
It seems like you are misrepresenting fact again.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Well those are the stats from the report I cited. Feel free to find contrary evidence.
Yes all those drugs sold by the dealers and gangs.
I said use not possession for sale but eventually there will be no reason to manufacture or harvest drugs for sale because it will be so totally unprofitable. Therefore, the prisons will clear up once those people have finished their sentences.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Should a lawyer be misrepresenting facts so often?
That really does seem like a serious problem that a lot of people are talking about. I know as I was in a legal case and the opposing counsel defamed me, Slandered me (except they can get away with it so maybe it is not slander by definition – but still wrong) he lied to the judge as an officer of the court, the judge knew it as the objective evidence was already there. The judge did nothing. No admonition, sanction or anything. What is the deal with our legal system. It seems like lawyers are shit it the toilet bowls of the court, and what comes out of their mouths are just BMs to clog up the system that costs all of us more money!
Maybe you should work on that problem? It doesn’t seem you are fairing well with your Abortion position. You still did not provide the budgets accurately to take care of the children and women for a life time. Many 1st degree murderers that murder del people don’t get life in prison, but you would place a desperate mother in that situation an leave her kids, veritable orphan of the state? You avoided a sincere answer.
I am saddened that some who will be a lawyer is willing to do that.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Fair comment is a defence to defamation so even if its strictly false it doesn’t matter I’m afraid. I’m sorry if you were unjustly denigrated in front of the Court.
Anyways I’m out of here for a while. See ya
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:37 pm
You did not address what is recreational. Why not?
Are you a cool dude recreational drug user against abortion.
Let the drug users and dealers out of Jail, and place innocent mothers in jail for life instead.
Are you BiPolar?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:39 pm
All those drugs you listed are recreational i.e. they are generally not taken for the purposes of medical treatment even though they could be used as part of a course medical treatment e.g. heroin and marijuana.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:42 pm
????
Do you get the common knowledge of recreational drugs.
And what diseases is Heroine FDA indicated for by the way?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:43 pm
This Dan is crazy! I love it. It is so funny to read the rants of crazy.
Thanks Dan, you are better than SNL!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I did n’t think he would answer me. As there is no FDA indication for heroine. It is just DAN being DAN, misrepresenting the truth as routine.
He will make a good lawyer though, and suck tons of money from his clients. He will probably be very successful at it as well. He has all the attributes of a successful lawyer.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 12:28 am
LOL heroin is used as a recreational drug AND it does have proven medical use but that’s beside the point.
It is known by the chemical name diamorphine. So please educate yourselves people.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:19 am
I just looked up Heroin in multiple places.
There is NO US FDA Indication that I could find for Heroin.
So why do you say there is Dan?
Do you really believe these people should be out on the street and selling more Heroin to children to make room for mothers to be imprisoned?
Even most ProLifers do not want to prosecute the Mother. You are way right wing on that one.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm
@ Stratan: Sorry where exactly did I say heroin was FDA approved? Can you please provide the exact quote.
I asserted it has medical use and that is 100% factual. It has been used in the UK for example under the name diamorphine and in Switzerland.
It is also being trialled by Germany, the Netherlands and Canada.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 9:30 pm
I think it is FDA (or the equivalent) in the UK.
But that still doesn’t answer why you are willing to let drug dealers of this very harmful substance out of prison, only to not make enough room to imprison innocent women for life.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
@ Jason: Firstly you claim they’re morally innocent and I claim they’re morally guilty so we aren’t going to agree on that.
As I explained above I do not want to let drug dealers out of prison just drug users and addicts. Drug addicts are better off in rehab than prison IMO.
Drug dealers currently serving time will remain in prison until the end of their sentences but I am sure there will be very few to take their place in prison because they won’t bother trying to sell those drugs illegally any more. It will be too unprofitable.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:28 am
I understand your position.
You want to get rid of birth control and you are right. Women should be allowed to use abortifacients to kill their babies.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:46 am
Oooops! Sorry, I meant NOT allowed to kill their babies!
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:33 am
Dan says, “I don’t think we have the right to kill the unborn just because they might turn out to be another Ted Bundy in the same way as we couldn’t kill a born infant even if they might turn out to be another Ted Bundy.:
Neither did I say I should have the right to kill a fetus to prevent the next Ted Bundy; what I say is, you have the duty to prevent the next child whose birth you insisted on from growing up to be the next Ted Bundy. And you deny that you have that obligation. As I said, that’s the deadbeat dad position.
By the way, what’s an honors law student doing blogging at 3 AM? You should protect your persona! (I’m monitoring freezing pipes myself.)
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:37 am
Perhaps you have not read all my posts. I believe strongly in welfare and child assistance but I would support that irrespective of whether I was in fact personally responsible for the existence of this child.
I’m actually off to Belgium next week to do the final semester of my degree as part of an exchange programme so I’m free to do as I please at the moment 🙂
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 3:44 am
Just as I arrive in NZ, no less.
P.S. Hey “Responsible”? It’s not 3 am everywhere. o.O It’s 3:43 am here on the east coast of the US. Did you know that there are other people in other countries? Weird, right?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:07 am
Sorry, Kera, but the world is a disk born on the backs of four elephants riding a huge tortoise swimming through space. . . check the other times Dan logs in. Enjoy New Zealand!
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:45 am
He’s IN New Zealand, you dunce. Oi vey. Your time logs mean nothing.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:53 am
Yup soaking up the sun hahaha
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:17 am
Dan, your support of institutional support for children and families doesn’t allow you to escape from your personal responsibility for the welfare of a child you wanted to see born, despite the primary caretaker’s feelings to the contrary. This is where the law, no matter how well intentioned, is too rigid to accommodate the needs of human development.
A major city in this state had a disused orphanage which was the staging point for the group blockading the Planned Parenthood clinic down the street. It was run by Catholic nuns. Twenty years ago the order was sued for terrrific child abuse. The order lost.
If you won’t accept responsibility of caring for that child (or those children) yourself, at least re-draft your proposal to ensure they get a fighting chance. I suggest you have it include a cash payment of $260,000 to every pregnant woman, so that she can be assured of meeting her unwanted child’s physical needs until it graduates high school.
Far cheaper would be a monthly stipend of 100 bucks from age 12 to age 24 for every female who is not pregnant– and ignore how they remain not pregnant. Women over 24 have much better outcomes raising their first and subsequent children– and you don’t have to be around!
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:59 am
I don’t think throwing money at the parents is enough though. Obviously they must have the money to provide the necessities for their child but in case they don’t I advocate school care programmes that ensures every child is adequately clothed and properly fed.
I think we could save money by having more free contraceptives on demand and more sex education in our schools. I also support monetary incentives for people who voluntarily elect to sterilize themselves. As a matter of cost that is certainly cheaper than raising a child for 18 years.
Basically I’m agreeing with you that unwanted children are a huge concern and they are our responsibility REGARDLESS of whether abortion is legal or not. You personally don’t get off the hook just because a woman could have chosen to abort because that is a total cop out. There will always be unwanted children sadly.
All children deserve to have the best shot at life and I think our only true disagreement is how we’re going to achieve that.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 7:29 am
dan, something that i found conspicuously absent from your theories is the men.
my current roommate was being coerced into another abortion by her father and her bf ( for lack of a better term).
my last roommate had already had an abortion when we met.
her abusive husband had insisted on it and she had 3 children ages 4 and under and no help in caring for them and she was simply overwhelmed.
both women were alienated from friends and family ( a classic sign of abuse) and didn’t know where else to turn.
where do the abusive men in the lives of women seeking abortions come into your thought process regarding your proposed laws?
are they to be off the hook and the women bear the penalties of the law?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm
If the woman has been coerced into having an abortion then of course the person who coerced her would be liable under the law I proposed. He would be a party to the offence by knowingly causing the death. Essentially his conduct began the chain of causation leading to the unborn individual’s death and he knew it would.
In fact I would question whether the woman had truly consented to the abortion in which case she would not be liable pursuant to subsection (4) of the law I proposed even though the doctor would be.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 9:10 pm
what assurance would there be that if the death of an unborn baby occurred, that the woman would not be prosecuted if law enforcement deemed that she had been at fault for being a smoker, or a drinker, or an addict, or obese, or had any of a number of other factors in her lifestyle that are unhealthy and not conducive to a healthy pregnancy?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Pro Lifers would stick her in Jail for Life.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:23 pm
The mens rea element of the offense is intentionally or knowingly not merely negligently.
So the prosecution has the burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt that at the time the woman was smoking or drinking etc. that she was intentionally or knowingly using it as the means to cause the death of the unborn.
If no such connection can be established then no violation of my proposed legislation has occurred even if it may be deemed child neglect like in the case of Cornelia Whitner.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Many women have so sadly done the most horrible things by mistake to end their pregnancy as they did not have the support in place to help them. I know personally of a young women that went to a CPC, asking for an abortion, they told her about hell, and gave her all this misinformation about the dangers of offices that do abortions.
She went home and drank lye. Her Esophagus and stomach were decimated. The pregnancy did die. And after about ten surgeries, so did she.
The harm Pro Lifers cause is immeasurable. They know nothing.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Many pro-lifers particularly the religious nutjobs are horrible people yes, I’m not going to argue with you there.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Why are the vast majority of Pro Lifers so misinformed when it comes to Abortion, yet they hold on to their beliefs despite the documented data?
Thank you for answering my question, but why do most pro lifers not answer questions honestly?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I think it is because they hate abortion based on faith more than on logic or any rational position.
They see all human life as special and in need of protection which is just patently absurd. For example the Terri Shiavo case. Her personhood was gone and it would never be recovered yet they insisted on keeping her human body alive. For what? She would never have another experience.
So long story short I think they are wilfully blind which is of course a form of dishonesty.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:23 pm
If you read any consent form for surgery (have you?) – do you really believe it is informed consent for anything. Sinus surgery, bowel surgery, C-section, whatever . . .?
The whole consent issue is a farce. Placed to protect against the tsunami of frivolous litigation – in the context of the reality that the consent has no real value in a litigation of med mal because the way the lawyers f–k up the system to their monetary gain.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm
I think true consent can only mean voluntary consent i.e. without any undue influence or coercion by any person.
So I am willing to give any person the benefit of the doubt if there is evidence that someone has influenced them into making an involuntary decision.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 8:55 am
It does not appear you are addressing Informed consent.
Not just Consent.
There is a difference.
I am referring to informed consent.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 9:32 am
I’m curious about abortion in New Zealand. Can you tell us, Dan, under what circumstances is it legal? Can an abortion be performed up to 24 weeks, like in the U.S.? Are there a lot of abortion clinics, just a few? Do people protest at clinics? Thanks!
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:56 pm
And of course informed consent should mean that the doctor gives the patient the facts relevant to their circumstances without making any moral value judgements. Of course they must also inform the patient of the law but that should be done in a non-judgemental factual way.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:06 am
In Texas, “informed consent” now means that the doctor MUST do an ultrasound on ANY woman who seeks an abortion, even if her “precious little blue-eyed, curly blonde-haired, laughing little girl” is a four-week blastocyst. Your comments, please.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Yea I think that is ridiculous and a complete waste of taxpayers money better spent elsewhere.
I have no time for poor attempts by the State to invoke emotional responses from women by effectively forcing them to view ultrasounds.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:33 am
Well, I for one would like to thank Dan for participating in this debate/discussion. Even though we’re all hiding behind our computers, I kind of takes some guts to put yourself out there. And while sometimes I really am not sure about his arguments, he is still opining, not hiding in the shadows like others. And I think that any pro-choicers who disagree with him do themselves a disservice when they stoop to name calling (that goes for pro-lifers as well). We’re not 12 year olds here. We’re adults. Let’s try to have a serious, civil discxussion abou this very serious issue!
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:55 am
I noticed some comments in the last few minutes…my computer is such that it sometimes is hard to track chronologically the comments…didn’t we or someone determine that Dan lives in New Zealand? If true, is he now asleep? Isn’t that where they filmed Lord of the Rings? 🙂
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Yup I’m in New Zealand and yes that is where Lord of the Rings was filmed lol
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Dan,
What do you think about all the CPCs that have been implicated, hundreds in spreading rancid lies and misinformation.
Telling Jewish women they are going to hell, and so on.
Do you think anything should be done about these heinous CPC activities?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:34 pm
I’ve gotta dash but I will be bak soon to answer that question. Short answer so far is yes but I’d like to elaborate.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 11:01 pm
OK so I believe the very name “Crisis Pregnancy Centre” is misleading and deceptive. I would support legislation to force them to change it into something more factually accurate.
At the end of the day the centre is free to operate and women are free to choose to go there or not.
However, if they give the impression that they are imparting factually accurate medical information about abortion then they should not proceed to spread blatant lies.
They can make whatever moral judgements they want and people are free to listen or not but they should not be able to impart patently false medical information as fact.
I would probably need to know more on their practices to make further recommendations.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:03 am
Here in America, where to make a profit by lying is constitutionally protected, you won’t be able to get CPC’s change their name to something which more accurately describes them.
What’s the so-called “pro-life” movement like in NZ, Dan?
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 7:22 am
There isn’t much of one as far as I’m aware. Abortion isn’t really a political issue in NZ, most people just kind of accept that its legal for some reasons and illegal for others
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Dan – Did you ever support your concept of opening up freely access to Heroin? You were asked directly about the well known societal consequences as they exist to this very present day.
If you did I would like to see. This page is so long I can’t find most your answers to questions.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Yes for sale at State depots.
The societal consequences whilst these drugs remain illegal is far worse and extends to unequivocally innocent people. For example the “drug war” has resulted in an estimated 47,500 drug related killings in Mexico from December 2006. In the first 9 months of 2011 alone 13,000 people died violently.
In the end I don’t care much for the drug users but I also don’t think prison is the place for them, rehabilitation is.
So to cut a long story short, when it comes to drugs dealt with by the gangs they should all be legalized.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Btw the reason it would reduce drug-related violence is it would remove the black market for drugs by undercutting the gangs and dealers to such an extent that it would be unprofitable to continue manufacturing or harvesting the drugs.
There may an initial influx in users but that could be coped with now that we would have more money to spend on rehab and drug education.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm
dan,
what of hipaa and the privacy act and doctor patient confidentiality?
where would they stand in your proposal?
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 10:45 pm
oops
sorry, it was me asking
the site is a bit buggy for me tonight.
my apologies
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 12:38 am
Well all communications between a doctor and patient are confidential and prima facie cannot be used in a Court of law as evidence. Was that the context you were thinking of?
My proposal would not change that and it would not be an offense to attempt to get an abortion even if you know that you do not fulfil the criteria I have laid out. Basically attempts by a pregnant woman to obtain an unlawful abortion would not itself amount to an offense.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:00 am
Yeah, and every prosecutor in the land is going to abide by that! Wait until you’ve spent fifty years in the real world, Dan….
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 7:24 am
Well patient-doctor confidentiality is privileged communication so no prosecutor would be able to successfully use such information in a court of law to obtain a conviction.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 7:36 am
I amend that sorry, it can be used currently in federal court under the current Federal Rules of Evidence which I personally think needs to be changed regardless.
Most state laws have doctor-patient privilege however.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:09 am
Dan says, “I think it is because they hate abortion based on faith more than on logic or any rational position.
They see all human life as special and in need of protection which is just patently absurd. ”
Dan, why would they be so protective of fetal life as to construct fantasies about its character, yet be so uncaring for a real child? I’m sure that as a barrister you would someday be pleading with a jury to mitigate its judgment of a client based on where he was coming from psychologically. How would you plead for so-called “pro-lifers?”
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 7:30 am
You mean a pro-life terrorist?
I would try to argue that they at least honestly believe what they do and the fact that they’re likely to be irrational demonstrates that they are not capable of fully understanding the wrongfulness of their actions.
Apart from that there is not much else I could do for them. Only their sky daddy can save their souls lol
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Dan, wouldn’t an aborticentrism defense be better?
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 7:21 am
Dan wrote about the drug wars and the latent consequences of illegal drugs. I’d like to take a moment and ask everyone to consider our culture’s obsession with war. We have the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the abortion war, the battle against ignorance, the war on poverty and homelessness, the battle against hunger. And now, the Right’s war on women’s reproductive health. Do we ever stop to think about our mad obsession with the archetypal metaphor of war?
And more important to women who hold up half the sky, why this brazen attack on our reproductive rights?
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 9:19 am
People like Dan who want to get rid of most forms of birth control just maintain wild and irresponsible beliefs – they could care less about the civil rights of others as they try and legislate without any consideration or empathy.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Empathy eh.. Do you think it is empathetic of the US govt to continue to create a profitable black market for the cartels to operate in?
47,000 people have been violently KILLED in Mexico since December 2006 due to the drugs war. We’re not talking about women who voluntarily chose to take the risks of procuring an unsafe abortion (which I can at least sympathise with), we’re talking about huge numbers of unequivocally blameless people who were murdered violently.
If this doesn’t invoke an empathetic response from you then I don’t know what will.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm
If it were just cartel members dying I would certainly not view it as a tragedy but that’s the trouble.. many blameless people are kidnapped and murdered because of this black market for drugs. The only way this ends is by removing the profit.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 9:34 am
this might come out twice because my computer is doing weird things but, Dan, what is the legal status of abortion over there? Can you get one up to 24 weeks? Are there lots of restrictions? Are there a lot of clinics or just a few? Protestors? Thanks!
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:22 pm
It is legal in limited circumstances with the consent of two certifying consultants
The grounds for a lawful abortion before 20 weeks gestation are:
1) That the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl
2) That there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped
3) Pregnancy as a result of incest
4) Pregnancy as a result of sexual connection with any biologically related or unrelated dependent family member under 18 years of age
Rape is not itself a ground but may be indirectly covered by the serious danger to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
After 20 weeks’ gestation,it is only to save the life of the woman or girl or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 11:50 am
Dan,
I have been a fan of the Abortion.com websites for years.
If you are just ending law school, then many of the People at Abortion.com have been advocating for the well being of women and children globally for years before you were even born (if you took a straight path to law school). I consider myself a part of Abortion.com because of they way they have helped me.
They advocate for women’s rights in general (Abortion is one of their specific areas of interest) but I just saw one of their members write an article on breast implants. Abortion.com funds the kind of Abortions that you are agreeable with (they probably won’t tell you that because of all the violent threats they get) that you believe the government should be funding but won’t. They help women and children, and do Philanthropic work in many ways including a wonderful micro loan fund. I know this as I am a beneficiary of this good work they do.
In Works there is Salvation. That does not have to be taken as a literally religious phrase. It can have a Psychological basis in a Universe without God. I am an Atheist ; I’ll probably be flamed for saying that. But who cares.
Dan you write so nicely and diplomatically here.
I really enjoy and looked forward to reading most your comments here. Then on the Abortion.com FaceBook page you behave like a bunch of other really horrible nasty mean spirited people that act as if they are Your friends.
You undermined all your credibility with me by your hurtful actions.
My opinion of you has spun 180 degrees in the wrong direction. I see now under, in my opinion again, that veil of diplomacy you wear, a really, really mean person.
That is the same Dan? Correct me if I am wrong, and I will fully apologize.
Just one little example:
———————
”
Dan Young: I’m under the impression that abortion.com is just a massive troll.
Its impressive that you’ve kept this going so long in between your work. You must be a retired doctor to have so much time on your hands to troll like this.
9 hours ago · Like · 1
Kera Morris: abortion.com, “you” are, IMO, a liar and an internet tough guy. Did you SERIOUSLY insult me for not answering your questions AFTER I told you I was leaving? You’re such an idiot. It’s pathetic, really.
8 hours ago · Like · 1
Matthew Field: Trollolol”
————————–
And YOU accuse Abortion.com of being a troll when they perform more humanitarian efforts and Philanthropy than likely (I am guessing here) you and your friends all put together.
You are really so duplicitous in My opinion.
I mean that with a negative connotation.
I was really shocked when I read what you and your friends were doing. Are you really real? Now I am beginning to doubt it. Is there really a guy named Dan that at first appeared to write so scholarly like, and then spiraled down to hate abusive type speech?
You destroyed all the credibility you had with me here. I was getting friends to read your comments. I was really enjoying your points and expressive opinions. But now I find it hard to believe anything you write is anything but tricky drivel.
Why did you do that?
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 2:31 am
I’ve said all I wanted to. Not looking for universal popularity and considering abortion.coms comments I stand by my accusation
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Convenient for you Dan, here is more of what you said. You are nefariously Duplicitous in my opinion.
Kera Morris Exactly, like how W orchestrated 9-11… wait, wut?
Yesterday at 3:55am · Like
Dan Young You take that back right now or we’re over!
Yesterday at 3:56am · Like
Kera Morris Oh, failbot. lol. I forgot. Clinton did it, right?
Yesterday at 3:56am · Like
Crissy Amaya eh, kera, you SHOULD be afraid of god. and you probably should be cold, frolicking in that slutty dress that you’re wearing in that profile picture. “/
Yesterday at 3:57am · Like
Abortion.com It does not appear that any of you, suddenly, consider the very serious issue of loss of civil liberties and being a humanitarian impotent enough to discuss. You liked ranting and disseminating misinformation better. Do as you please, have…
See More
Yesterday at 3:58am · Unlike · 2
Kera Morris YOU should be afraid of the government trying to control your body. What’s next? Forcing everyone to circumcise?
Yesterday at 3:58am · Unlike · 1
Dan Young Everyone who subscribes to any reputable right wing conspiracy website knows that obama trained monkeys in a communist militant camp in Kenya which were sent as bodyguards for Bush (he communicates better with lower order primates) but were actually assassins.
Yesterday at 3:59am · Unlike · 1
Crissy Amaya …what just happened?
Yesterday at 3:59am · Unlike · 1
Kera Morris Abortion.com, did you just call all of us impotent? I don’t even own a penis.
Yesterday at 3:59am · Unlike · 2
Kera Morris This writer is furious that That writer would accuse me of such a thing.
Yesterday at 4:00am · Unlike · 1
Crissy Amaya kera, if the government is doing god’s will, then i will happily have them “control” my womb. and just so you know, it’s GOD who controls it, not the government.
Yesterday at 4:00am · Unlike · 1
Kera Morris Christ wears Armani nowadays.
Yesterday at 4:01am · Unlike · 1
Crissy Amaya and the devil wears prada.
Yesterday at 4:01am · Unlike · 2
Kera Morris oh, snap.
Yesterday at 4:02am · Unlike · 1
Abortion.com You were outed.
Yesterday at 4:02am · Unlike · 2
Kera Morris It was the worldwide network of spies, was it? 😀
Yesterday at 4:03am · Unlike · 1
Crissy Amaya who was outed? are you saying that kera’s a transvestite?? WHAT? that’s disgusting. D:
Yesterday at 4:03am · Unlike · 1
Dan Young Look what you two did.
Yesterday at 4:04am · Unlike · 1
Crissy Amaya i’m confused and insulted.
Yesterday at 4:05am · Unlike · 1
Dan Young How do you think abortion.com feels?
Yesterday at 4:07am · Like
Dan Young Its all about you isn’t it crissy..
Yesterday at 4:07am · Like
Kera Morris Historically they have felt megalomania stirring in their loins, if This Reader’s observations count for anything, Dan. 🙂
Yesterday at 4:08am · Like · 1
Crissy Amaya dan, i’m a speaker for christ and the lord, so, yes, it is about me.
Yesterday at 4:09am · Like
Kera Morris This Reader is exhausted and we’re going to have to take ourselves to bed now.
Yesterday at 4:10am · Like · 1
Dan Young oh piss off THEY (both of its personalities) are just trying to have an open and honest discussion.
Yesterday at 4:10am · Like
Kera Morris We’re not amused by this, Dan. We’re seriously leaving now. Don’t try to stop us. Just don’t. We mean it.
Yesterday at 4:11am · Like · 1
Crissy Amaya two people? what? now i’m really confused. who am i talking to? what site is this? what kind of world am i living in? what is this? is this the twilight zone?
Yesterday at 4:13am · Like
Dan Young Well I’ll tell you what I think this is.. its the no spin zone. That’s right, O’Reilly just got rolled.
Yesterday at 4:14am · Like
Crissy Amaya this is very troubling. kera, get help. i’m going to go pray and ask god to save all the aborted babies or to at least bring them back from the dead. even if it means that they come back as zombies. i’d rather have zombie babies walking around than dead babies. even if half of their bodies are mangled and bloody. 😦
Yesterday at 4:15am · Like
Crissy Amaya not even bill o’reilly can explain this mess.
Yesterday at 4:15am · Like
Crissy Amaya then again, he also couldn’t explain how tides happen. because only god can. ♥
Yesterday at 4:16am · Like · 2
Dan Young I’ve heard Rick Santorum will be introducing their next aborted child to his children like he did with his wife’s aborted fetus called Gabriel.
Yesterday at 4:17am · Like
Crissy Amaya what the jibbitty HECK, dan?? gosh darn it, that’s the most awful thing i’ve ever heard. you’re awful, you know that? an awful person. for the love of daisies and honey!! 😦
Yesterday at 4:19am · Like
Crissy Amaya SHOOT, I’M SO MAD!! DARN!! HIBBITTY DIBBITTY!! POPYCORN!! this is so wrong. you can’t just make fun of a family and their grief. poor gabriel. just like an angel. only that he’s dead, and i thought angels were immortal. i need to ask my pastor about this.
Yesterday at 4:21am · Like
Dan Young Oh sorry Gabriel was the stillborn one.. not sure what was the name of the aborted one but they brought him/her home in a petri dish I heard.
Yesterday at 4:21am · Like
Crissy Amaya he was so small. he looked like a barbie.
Yesterday at 4:22am · Like
Crissy Amaya it’s so sad.
Yesterday at 4:22am · Like
Crissy Amaya or he looked like an elf. elves are really small like aborted babies. poor souls.
Yesterday at 4:23am · Like
Dan Young Yea it must have been upsetting. They now have a portrait of him hanging in their hallway.
Yesterday at 4:23am · Like
Crissy Amaya i’d have put him on a cross. that way i know that he died for something. just like our savior. ♥
Yesterday at 4:24am · Like
Dan Young Yea but its a bit difficult for the taxidermist to get the stuffing in there 😦
Yesterday at 4:25am · Like
Crissy Amaya they can use stuffing from a teddybear and a dehydrator. or the oven at a very, very low setting.
Yesterday at 4:26am · Like · 1
Dan Young I think they should just get one of those jars with formaldehyde like they have in the labs and keep him on the dinner table so he can be in the middle of their prayers when they say grace.
Yesterday at 4:26am · Like
Crissy Amaya oh! that’s actually a great idea!! ♥
Yesterday at 4:26am · Like
Dan Young Yea but I bet abortion.com would just snigger at such a heart-warming gesture.
Yesterday at 4:33am ·
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I wonder what the weather is like in Upper Darby PA?
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 10:34 am
Dan, i would like to ask you something, and PLEASE don’t answer me with anger because there is no reason for that… So here it is:
– Being that you are an attorney to be, how come you are so outside the loop on the subject of abortion? Because i am neither pro choice or pro life, but i believe that now in days, where children start to have sex before they are ready to, for lots of reasons, and the main one is the lack of education provided by their own parents, things should be looked differently, don’t you?
I was a single mom by the age of 15, and the first time i had sex, i didn’t know i could get pregnant by having sex because every time i asked my mom, she would ignore the subject.
Also, i have seeing attorneys acting in different cases and usually they go to the side of money (sorry not picking on you particularly) so if a client comes to you, she just had an abortion, and for that reason only, she is being accused of something, but she is RICH as she could be, you would let her walk away from your office?
Thanks!
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 6:52 am
Thanks for your polite question sorry to begin by asking one in return. Outside the loop on abortion in what aspects exactly?
In terms of children having sex before they’re ready to I’ve stated numerous times here that I am in favor of free contraception and more sex education.
In terms of who I would represent, I will literally represent anyone with sufficient money and if I have the time and expertise to take their case and the cab rank rule here demands it of me. I cannot refuse to represent a client based on my personal moral views and nor would I want to.
So of course I would represent a woman who had had an abortion.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 10:43 am
Well Dan, your silence is proof of what I was thinking on the matter.
And i read even more of the horrible things you wrote. I really think you may be a very sad frustrated person for some reason.
You should turn to a friend, not a public forum, to take out your frustrations.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 11:30 am
Well, and so goes another troll, huh?
Re Komen, when they discussed cutting off groups that are “under investigation,” apparently during that board meeting one of the top dogs did say this would mean planned parenthood. Think about it: someone at Komen knew that one pukey little anti-abortion congressman had held ONE hearing that got no publicity and knew that this new policy would affect them. And Charles is right up above: what are/were the other organizations, if any, that they’ve cut money to? eight
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Yeah,
a bunch of trolls.
Dan proved what he was by his disappearing act here,
After he did what he did the other day several times.
Sad, these people.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 7:25 am
Hmm considering you felt I had lost credibility by that comment about abortion.com (which I stand by) you must feel the same about the majority of the posters here who launched personal attacks mainly just because they disagreed with my position.
But hey right back at you; how do I know you’re a real person? The problem with this blog is that people can post under whatever identity they like and there’s no way to know if someone is posting under multiple aliases.
Anyways that’s not so important, I’m now ignoring anyone who initiates a personal attack against me but I will happily answer genuine questions about my position on abortion or drugs.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Dan,
A reasonable question on the minds of more than a few people here that you seem to continually avoid.
What is this conversation you seem to be having with your friends?
And another genuine question, why have you not answered?
It lacks congruence with the “”Dan” we are trying to trust as a genuine commentor.
Next page please.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm
They dont have a noise ordinance law to stop the bullhorns? Is Dunkle still protesting at the clinic director’s home?
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Those are not genuine questions about my position on abortion or drugs.
I will just say this; you can go see my comments on abortion.com for yourself and make up your own mind.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Many Planned Parenthood facilities offer breast cancer screenings. Now, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced that it will halt its partnership with Planned Parenthood because of some sham “congressional hearings” examining PPFA’s operations!
Shame!
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 9:54 am
Check out Nancy Brinker’s PR video on Komen web site. It’s stunning for all that it does not refute.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:33 am
Regarding Komen’s decision to defund PP:
Karen Handel, vice president of public policy at the Dallas-based Komen has made no bones about her anti-abortion — and anti-Planned Parenthood — position. In a July 2010 blog post, Handel explained, “since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood … In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws.”
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm
@Katie H, what is all this talk about Dan, et al being trolls on the abortion.com Facebook page. What exactly are they doing over there?
If they’re screwing around, isn’t that so typical? I try to be objective and fair when it comes to our debates and invariably, once we find a “decent” pro-lifer or two, they end up being total idiots. I can think of a few exceptions, like Rogie, but what is with these people???
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 10:06 pm
I don’t know, I even just saw that Kera on FB, but she was trolling around also, and then disappeared like the rest of them always do.
Just the way people act that don’t have anything to say that holds any logic. They run away rather than hang around and learn from their deficits of education. Their ego’s can’t take being wrong in the tiniest degree, it is actually sad.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 11:38 am
What I found interesting last night about this Susan B Komen thing was they had absolutely no spokespeople on any of the television programs. That really does not look well. I guess they didn’t have a crisis management plan in effect! And now PPFA is making more money than Komen ever gave them. Is this a great country or what?
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Tbogg of firedoglake writes about how Komen has shot itself in the foot on this one. If they have any conscience, they’re having an NPR moment about this, and Handel might be looking for another job. Their annual nationwide Races for Life are probably going to nosedive. . .
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm
And it looks as if Karen Handel, Komen, and Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for LIfe, are sorority sisters of the prolife kind. It just gets better and better….
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Komen says it disconnected because it doesn’t want to be affiliated with any organization under investigation, but it has not disassociated itself from Bank of America, which is under MULTIPLE investigations across the country. No more Races for Life in this state!
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 7:54 am
as much as i oppose PP, in all fairness, an investigation is not a conviction.
if the primary reason had been listed as a desire to give the funds directly to organizations that perform the mammograms, komen would have been better off.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Dan said, “I’ve said all I wanted to. Not looking for universal popularity and considering abortion.coms comments I stand by my accusation.”
What accusation?
Dan, I hope you don’t leave before you give me a response to my question as to whether you could better defend a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” with an aborticentrism defense.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm
If you read the trolling comments he made on the Abortion.com FB page you will see that Dan is not what he claims to be. His behavior is wildly dichotomous. He written word blossoms the fact that he has no regard for sincere discussion. This has been born out over and over again with Dan.
Translation Responsible,
Don’t hold your breath if you want an intelligent conversation out of Dan.
He will never be a match for your level of knowledge, experience, and wisdom.
There is nothing genuine in my opinion about this character or his friends. They behave more like transient trolling hooligans than people desirous of serious discussion.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 7:12 am
I’m still chuckling over this post of yours
“It is very clear that Dan appears to be lacking in knowledge about abortion.
By his own admission he has no intimate knowledge of abortion in the routine setting. How does one create vast opinions without this knowledge? Has he ever counseled 100 women to understand the issue? It sounds like he has not. That is an ego to large for an opinion.”
So basically you’re saying unless I have counselled 100 women I cannot possibly understand the issue enough to form a position.
Maybe I need to counsel 100 people on death row before I can form a position on the death penalty.
Maybe I need to counsel 100 people who were raped before I can form a position on rape.
Absolutely ridiculous. That argument holds no validity..
I’ve begun ignoring others who prefer to make this personal as you did on January 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm. You made this personal so now I will proceed to ignore you.
Anyone who wants to genuinely discuss issues, I’ll be around from time to time.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 7:57 am
>>>He will never be a match for your level of knowledge, experience, and wisdom.<<<
he also doesn't have chuckle's humanitarian heart and sense of ethics.
but he is very young and quite often, the things that matter come with time and wisdom.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 8:01 am
Since I have you here, please provide evidence regarding the inconsistency of my abortion proposal.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 8:03 am
After all you claim:
Rogelio Tavera >>>The one thing he cannot be called is inconsistent.<<<
actually, once again, i said that HIS PROPOSAL was inconsistent and i stand by that. it is my opinion and i am entitled to it.
once again, your loyalty to him is quite admirable, but i was simply not impressed with his proposal.
8 hours ago · Like
So is this just an irrational opinion or are you going to back it up with some empirical evidence?
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 6:57 am
My accusation that abortion.com is a massive troll.
Nope because it is not a recognized legal defense nor would it be considered a mitigating factor at sentencing.
The only possible defense I can see is pleading defense of the unborn’s life but that is highly unlikely to succeed unless the unborn is recognized as a person in law.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Dan, you cast doubt on your claim to be an honors law student with your statement that the only possible defense is focused on the fetus.
A good lawyer will build the strongest case possible for his/her client, seeking to reduce first degree murder to second or even third-degree, and your inability to develop aborticentrism as at the very least a mitigating circumstance at sentencing, much less as an avenue of defense before and during the trial in order to minimize the likelihood of conviction says to me that you really aren’t at the top of your class.
One of the best lawyers for the underrepresented in America was Clarence Darrow, who developed the defense that “the system” was the underlying cause for his clients’ transgressions. Juries bought it by the bucketload, because nobody had ever before pointed out how cruel laissez-fair capitalism was to the ordinary American. You’ll never successfully defend a so-called “pro-lifer” if you don’t study the movement from all sides.
I could be wrong, but I think the best you’ll ever do in law is as a solicitor, not a barrister, so I advise you not to overreach.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Well technically all defenses focus on the client; for example self-defense only requires an honest belief of imminent harm. I don’t actually have to prove there is imminent harm, just that my client honestly believed that there was. Unfortunately that belief of imminent harm has to be directed toward a person which the unborn legally isn’t.
Now I have already pointed out that I could mitigate my client’s sentence due to their circumstances and I could possibly even plead for a downgrading of the charges if I can establish that it lacked premeditation. But I cannot see a complete defense besides self-defense unless my client is legally insane in which case they will still be committed.
Aborticentrism is not a valid legal defense (it isn’t even a widely accepted term) and I don’t pretend to be Clarence Darrow and I don’t have to be to become a barrister. So thanks for your predictions but I suggest you don’t quit your day job…
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Dan your inability to probe the possibilities of a radical new defense will leave you stuck in your day job.
Darrow will live in history as the first lawyer to show how a culture of capitalist piracy breeds victims who have no other recourse than to kill. Before him, it was not a valid legal defense; afterward, it was.
Of course, since you don’t know anything about aborticentrism, you’ll never go in a bold new direction. But as I said, the best lawyers consider all the possibilities, no matter how implausible….
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Are you sure that Darrow’s argument was treated as a complete defense to the charges? I would like to see your sources because it sounds more likely to be a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Aborticentrism is not a widely accepted term. When it is then it might have a future in legal defense. I guess your job is to get it widely accepted first.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Swot a bit about Darrow, and then think if you want to have the same sort of reputation. You won’t get it by being a follower, but there’s no harm in choosing to be one.
LikeLike