Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. We never saw this one coming, did we?

We never saw this one coming, did we?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
learninghtmlcomquestionannouncement
7 Posts 2 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • I Offline
    I Offline
    Ilion
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Texas Could Be First State to Have Infanticide Law[^] Bill would make postpartum disorder legal defense

    Postpartum mental disorder could be used as a legal defense for women who kill their children under a bill introduced in the Legislature. The bill was filed this month by Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, and it applies to women who commit the crime within a year of giving birth, The Dallas Morning News reported in Sunday editions. If jurors find a mother guilty of murder, they could take testimony about postpartum issues into consideration during the trial's punishment phase. If jurors find that the woman's judgment was impaired because of childbirth or lactation, they could judge her guilty of infanticide, a state jail felony that would carry a maximum punishment of two years in jail. If lawmakers approve the measure, Texas would become the first state to have an infanticide law, said George Parnham, the Houston attorney who defended Andrea Yates. "It's something every civilized country has on its books," said Parnham, who supports the legislation. "The only thing that will change public attitude is education about postpartum issues." ...

    Of course, women all across the western world already have the right to a reduced charge and sentence for the killing of an adult man (or, if they are lesbian, the killing of a woman). In some cases, they need merely claim that he (or she) was abusive.

    B 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • I Ilion

      Texas Could Be First State to Have Infanticide Law[^] Bill would make postpartum disorder legal defense

      Postpartum mental disorder could be used as a legal defense for women who kill their children under a bill introduced in the Legislature. The bill was filed this month by Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, and it applies to women who commit the crime within a year of giving birth, The Dallas Morning News reported in Sunday editions. If jurors find a mother guilty of murder, they could take testimony about postpartum issues into consideration during the trial's punishment phase. If jurors find that the woman's judgment was impaired because of childbirth or lactation, they could judge her guilty of infanticide, a state jail felony that would carry a maximum punishment of two years in jail. If lawmakers approve the measure, Texas would become the first state to have an infanticide law, said George Parnham, the Houston attorney who defended Andrea Yates. "It's something every civilized country has on its books," said Parnham, who supports the legislation. "The only thing that will change public attitude is education about postpartum issues." ...

      Of course, women all across the western world already have the right to a reduced charge and sentence for the killing of an adult man (or, if they are lesbian, the killing of a woman). In some cases, they need merely claim that he (or she) was abusive.

      B Offline
      B Offline
      BoneSoft
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

      "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

      I 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B BoneSoft

        I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

        I Offline
        I Offline
        Ilion
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        BoneSoft wrote:

        I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

        So, are you saying that there are indeed people who are intellectually dishonest? And that one can decide, with an honorable degree of accuracy, when the term 'intellectually dishonest' applies to another person? == And on a different note and level, would the mind-set behind this hypothetical claim or position (which we all understand will be made) be in some degree similar to that of persons who, while they may not be *for* dishonestly and dishonorably silencing another, are not exactly *against* it, either?

        B 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • I Ilion

          BoneSoft wrote:

          I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

          So, are you saying that there are indeed people who are intellectually dishonest? And that one can decide, with an honorable degree of accuracy, when the term 'intellectually dishonest' applies to another person? == And on a different note and level, would the mind-set behind this hypothetical claim or position (which we all understand will be made) be in some degree similar to that of persons who, while they may not be *for* dishonestly and dishonorably silencing another, are not exactly *against* it, either?

          B Offline
          B Offline
          BoneSoft
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Ilíon wrote:

          So, are you saying that there are indeed people who are intellectually dishonest? And that one can decide, with an honorable degree of accuracy, when the term 'intellectually dishonest' applies to another person?

          None of that needs saying. What I'm saying is that they won't be happy until any murder done by a woman in the name of convenience is not only legal but smiled upon.

          Ilíon wrote:

          And on a different note and level, would the mind-set behind this hypothetical claim or position (which we all understand will be made)

          I haven't the vaguest clue as to what you're getting at.

          "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

          I 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B BoneSoft

            Ilíon wrote:

            So, are you saying that there are indeed people who are intellectually dishonest? And that one can decide, with an honorable degree of accuracy, when the term 'intellectually dishonest' applies to another person?

            None of that needs saying. What I'm saying is that they won't be happy until any murder done by a woman in the name of convenience is not only legal but smiled upon.

            Ilíon wrote:

            And on a different note and level, would the mind-set behind this hypothetical claim or position (which we all understand will be made)

            I haven't the vaguest clue as to what you're getting at.

            "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

            I Offline
            I Offline
            Ilion
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            BoneSoft wrote:

            None of that needs saying. What I'm saying is that they won't be happy until any murder done by a woman in the name of convenience is not only legal but smiled upon.

            So, are you saying that since (according to you) there is no "need" to say that such persons are intellectually dishonest, there is therefore an obligation to not say they are (even if it's true)? And are you saying that:

            BoneSoft wrote:

            I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

            is not, just different verbiage for "'they' are intellectually dishonest," after all? And, if so, can you explain to me how and why it is not?

            BoneSoft wrote:

            I haven't the vaguest clue as to what you're getting at.

            Then don't worry about it.

            B 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • I Ilion

              BoneSoft wrote:

              None of that needs saying. What I'm saying is that they won't be happy until any murder done by a woman in the name of convenience is not only legal but smiled upon.

              So, are you saying that since (according to you) there is no "need" to say that such persons are intellectually dishonest, there is therefore an obligation to not say they are (even if it's true)? And are you saying that:

              BoneSoft wrote:

              I bet they still claim they're not for killing babies. They're just not so against it. Some friggin people... X|

              is not, just different verbiage for "'they' are intellectually dishonest," after all? And, if so, can you explain to me how and why it is not?

              BoneSoft wrote:

              I haven't the vaguest clue as to what you're getting at.

              Then don't worry about it.

              B Offline
              B Offline
              BoneSoft
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Ilíon wrote:

              So, are you saying that since (according to you) there is no "need" to say that such persons are intellectually dishonest, there is therefore an obligation to not say they are (even if it's true)?

              No. "None of that needs saying" can be taken as "that goes without saying".

              Ilíon wrote:

              is not, just different verbiage for "'they' are intellectually dishonest," after all?

              Kinda.

              "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

              I 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B BoneSoft

                Ilíon wrote:

                So, are you saying that since (according to you) there is no "need" to say that such persons are intellectually dishonest, there is therefore an obligation to not say they are (even if it's true)?

                No. "None of that needs saying" can be taken as "that goes without saying".

                Ilíon wrote:

                is not, just different verbiage for "'they' are intellectually dishonest," after all?

                Kinda.

                "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

                I Offline
                I Offline
                Ilion
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                BoneSoft wrote:

                No. "None of that needs saying" can be taken as "that goes without saying".

                It wouldn't have occurred to me that that's what you meant.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                • Login

                • Don't have an account? Register

                • Login or register to search.
                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Categories
                • Recent
                • Tags
                • Popular
                • World
                • Users
                • Groups