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

**pseusawbappem** · 03-12-2011, 11:55 AM

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."

Fair enough. I read the opening and figured it was the typical Republican/prolife BS. I confess I didn't read any further as this was enough for me to roll eyes and move on.

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. Great.

But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.

Meh. Get better reporters. The article by your own admission was incorrect.

03-12-2011, 11:55 AM	#13
pseusawbappem Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 472 Senior Member	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." Fair enough. I read the opening and figured it was the typical Republican/prolife BS. I confess I didn't read any further as this was enough for me to roll eyes and move on. 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. Great. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk. Meh. Get better reporters. The article by your own admission was incorrect.
	Quote