DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Allorneadesee** · 03-12-2011, 09:33 AM

From the first line of the article you posted:

...if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement.

Reverse onus.
Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.

03-12-2011, 09:33 AM	#8
Allorneadesee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	From the first line of the article you posted: ...if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement. Reverse onus. Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.
	Quote