|
| Thread: Are hormones an excuse for murder? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 07, 2009 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:59, 07 May 2009.
|
Are hormones an excuse for murder?
Do you think a hormonal shift after childbirth should be an excuse for a woman to kill her children?
Under a proposed bill in Texas a woman can receive as little as 180 days in a state jail for killing a child of hers less than 1 year old and can be sentenced to at most two years.
http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/05/0505infanticide.html
Quote:
"Under the bill, a defendant's attorney could argue during the punishment stage of a murder trial that the mother's judgment was impaired by the effects of birth or lactation. If the victim was younger than 12 months old, the crime could be reduced to a state jail felony, meaning a maximum sentence of two years and a minimum of 180 days. Currently, the slaying of anyone under the age of 6 brings a capital murder charge."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 10:56 PM |
|
|
No.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 23:44, 07 May 2009.
|
hmmm... Edited I guess 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
It's not meant to be an excuse, but an explanation. As Insanity is no excuse, but an explanation.
The thing is that it makes no sense to penalize someone for something the perpetrator has no awareness of having done.
It seems to be something that has to be researched further, and it seems to be law in Britain, Canada and Australia anyway.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:32 PM |
|
|
|
If you're a mechanical determinist, theoretically, everything is an excuse for murder since it's not your fault. A "sane" pedophile is no more guilty than a schizophrenic. People just continue enforce the laws out of the general principle that it makes society function easier regardless of whether or not guilt is an illusion.
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:41 PM |
|
|
I know I gave up my sword in this forum, but the kind of spam here does nothing but hurt the quality of the OSM - you guys who did it should be nice and delete your posts so the Moderators don't have to...
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:44 PM |
|
|
@ Anakrom: Of course I wasn't serious. Mormones has the unfortunate trait of rhyming with Hormones
@ Pan: I guess I'm off to edit then...
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 01:01 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:01, 08 May 2009.
|
If you believe that hormonal shifts during pregnancy or after childbirth can cause a woman to lose control of her actions and suddenly become a murdereer against her will should women of childbearing age be excluded from politics? You can't really have it both ways. Do hormonal shifts result in totally irrational behavior that a woman can't control or do they not?
My position is that hormonal shifts do not make a woman unable to control her actions.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 01:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The error in your thinking lies here in your comment. At first you ask if we believe that hormonal shifts during pregnancy or after childbirth can cause a woman to lose control of her actions. Then you go on to ask if women of childbearing age should be excluded from politics. These are two different issues.
No they are not. If a woman is basically excused for murdering children under the age of 1 year old because she is supposedly incapable of controlling her actions due to hormonal shifts then during pregnancy and for a period of one year after pregnancy she should be barred from political office due to her supposed mental incapacity. And taxpayers should not be required to give her a paid vacation during that time.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 03:28 AM |
|
|
no but it should affect where you serve your time. To the nut house in a straight jacket, no kids allowed near them, and no tv, for life, crazy che-obs
____________
What are you up to
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 07:55 AM |
|
|
Elodin, your comments have no merit.
We know, for example, that ex-soldiers can suffer from all kinds of deep traumatic mental disruptions, so should all ex-soldiers be barred from politics?
It's obviously so that it MAY happen, one out of what, a million, for someone to completely lose control. This may even be the result of the hormonones working in combination with another defect, for example the manic-depressive types, the borderline thing.
It's obviously NOT so that every woman ist shocked hormonally out of her sanity after giving birth.
But it MAY happen and it MAY be a reason in at least SOME of the FEW cases when mothers loose it and kill a baby. What's so incredible about it?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 10:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No they are not. If a woman is basically excused for murdering children under the age of 1 year old, because she is supposedly incapable of controlling her actions due to hormonal shifts, then during pregnancy and for a period of one year after pregnancy she should be barred from political office due to her supposed mental incapacity. And taxpayers should not be required to give her a paid vacation during that time.
If that happens then kind of yes. BUT there is a 1 of "how many numbers long`?" chance of it happening, so really it will not happen except in rare cases.
So a law COULD pass, but it could be used for heavy discrimination if the wrong law about it passed. So i'm against a law like that, but rather add hormon overload to the list of "not controlling your own actions".
____________
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 03:18 PM |
|
|
Nothing is an excuse! If you have fingers, that is not an excuse to shoot someone. Or if someone intoxicated you and you went crazy, that is not an excuse either.
However, punishement is not necessary if it won't help to avoid incidents in the future.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 10:30 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:30, 08 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Then in your follow up question you asked if all women, (not just pregnant or having just given birth, mind you) of child bearing age should be allowed in politics...etc etc...
And how do you intend to measure this? In politics it can be even more costly/devastating, economically speaking (I know this makes me sound cruel, but seriously, that's what all politicians think  , so I speak in their language)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 11:54 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:55, 08 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Nothing is an excuse! If you have fingers, that is not an excuse to shoot someone. Or if someone intoxicated you and you went crazy, that is not an excuse either.
However, punishement is not necessary if it won't help to avoid incidents in the future.
So one day short of her child being 1 year old a woman kills her child and claims "The Hormones made me do it." Since should would be legally "hormone surge free" and it wasn't her fault that she beheaded her kid anyways (theoretically) so she goes scott free in one day huh?
Quote:
It is an inaccurate comparison that you used in your example. The first woman was actually pregnant and then within the first year she had killed her kids. Then in your follow up question you asked if all women, (not just pregnant or having just given birth, mind you) of child bearing age should be allowed in politics...etc etc...
I said all women because evidently pregnancy is a dangerous thing that can make you lose control of your senses. Do you have a female president who just got pregnant last week to have a sudden hormone surge and decide to fire off some nukes?
Maybe females in politics should be allowed to serve during child bearing age but be tested every week for pregnancy just make sure they don't pose a danger to society? Certainly every female legistator that votes for the bill should voluntarily sumbit to such testing if they really believ in what they are voting for.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 03:47 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:01, 09 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Then again, maybe religious people should stay away from politics too? They are much more prone to volitile outbursts and acts of violence than any pregnant woman I have ever seen.
Funny, that has not been my observation. And atheism has been responsible for the death of over 250 million people in the past 100 years thanks to zealous atheist tyrants.
A true Christian, one who has been transformed by Christ and who follows the teachings of Christ will never be a mass murderer.
But maybe you were talking about atheists, since the Supreme Court said atheism is a religion.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
Quote:
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
Quote:
Needless to say, it seems you have some deep seeded hatred of pregnant women, or just women in general.
No, I am pointing out inconsistant positions.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 03:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then again, maybe religious people should stay away from politics too? They are much more prone to volitile outbursts and acts of violence than any pregnant woman I have ever seen.
Needless to say, it seems you have some deep seeded hatred of pregnant women, or just women in general.
Funny, that has not been my observation. And atheism has been responsible for the death of over 250 million people in the past 100 years thanks to zealous atheist tyrants.
A true Christian, one who has been transformed by Christ and who follows the teachings of Christ will never be a mass murderer.
But maybe you were talking about atheists, since the Supreme Court said atheism is a religion.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
Quote:
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
Quote:
Needless to say, it seems you have some deep seeded hatred of pregnant women, or just women in general.
No, I think pregnacy is beautiful.
I am pointing out the inconsistancies that certain people who hold no one responsible for their actions hold.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 06:05 AM |
|
|
lol Worldnetdaily
Quote:
And atheism has been responsible for the death of over 250 million people in the past 100 years thanks to zealous atheist tyrants.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 06:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
lol Worldnetdaily
Quote:
And atheism has been responsible for the death of over 250 million people in the past 100 years thanks to zealous atheist tyrants.
If you had bothered to actually go to the site you would see it was refering to the court case, not the atheist statistics. Of course you only accept statistics from Chris Matthew in between his orgasms over Obama.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 07:07 AM |
|
|
If you had read the article, you would clearly see that it is not the Supreme Court.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
