Having a miscarriage? Don't do it in Virginia.

[vaulos]

How, as pertaining to the torture question, is it different. I understand the legal reason, as to why they are different.

[Partha]

He's pulled the bill anyways.

[Riggen]

The purpose of the analogy was not to show that both were legal requirements

No shit, Sherlock. One is (or would be) legally required and one isn't. This was my counterpoint in showing the inapplicability of your analogy.

my purpose was to show that it was niether torture nor out of the ordinary.

And in that you failed, mainly because you did not consider the element of compulsion. If a claustrophobic person acting on their own free will locks themself into a dark closet for hours, that's masochistic but not torture. If someone else forces them to do it, then it is torture.

I hate to break out the dictionary in yet another thread, but if you look up "torture" you'll find several definitions. By at least one definition, any severe physical or mental pain whether intentionally inflicted or not can be called torture. By the definition I'm using, "To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another)," this would-be law is torture. All that's necessary to support that claim is to find a single case of a woman suffering extra anguish because she had to fulfill the law's requirements. Since the thread started with a direct link to the word of an expert on the topic (a woman who has experienced miscarriage) attesting to the pain this would cause her, I think the validity of the term is sufficiently established.

[Riggen]

Add to that Cosgrove's own words in his response. For the slow learners in this thread, I've bolded the most relevant section to the topic at hand:

Hello:

I am Delegate Cosgrove and I wish to respond to the allegations that have been made by those who have emailed and called my office. I am sorry that I must resort to a “form email, but there have been many inquiries about this bill.The intent of House Bill 1677 is to require the notification of authorities of a delivery of a baby that is dead and the mother has not been attended by a medical professional. This bill was requested by the Chesapeake Police Department in its legislative package due to instances of full term babies who were abandoned shortly after birth. These poor children died horrible deaths and all that the person responsible could be charged with is the improper disposal of a human body.

The requirement for twelve hours comes from the method that a coroner would use to determine if the child had been born alive or dead. After twelve hours, it becomes next to impossible to determine if the child was alive due to decomposition gasses that build up in the body.

My bill in no way intends that a woman who suffers a miscarriage should be charged for not notifying authorities. The bill in no way mentions miscarriages, only deliveries. After discussing the bill again with our legislative services lawyers, I will include language that will define the bill to apply only to those babies that are abandoned as stated above.

I would never inflict this type of emotional torture on a woman who has suffered such a traumatic event as a miscarriage, and I am confident that the General Assembly of Virginia would also not pass such a terrible imposition on a woman.

I hope that you will understand the original intent of this bill. This bill has nothing to do with abortion, contraception and especially miscarriages. If you were alarmed by this bill or by the websites, I am sorry. I hope that this will explain the concept and intent of this bill.

Sincerely,

John A. Cosgrove

Even Cosgrove sees that his bill would be torture for miscarrying women, and is going to rework it in a much more reasonable and useful fashion. Shame on each and every single poster in this thread who suggested that such a travesty would be acceptable. Where the fuck is your humanity?

[vaulos]

Riggen- You are mixing the legal question with the torture question. I am attempting to seperate them. I don't care whether they are legal or not. Slavery was legal for a while, but that doesn't make it "right". The only question that I'm interested in is whether or not asking someone to do those things is unreasonable on the basis of being torture.

As to the rest, by your definition, paying taxes is torture. Now, that might be fun to say, but I think if we evaluate it honestly, I'd imagine that we can all agree that by being forced to pay your taxes, the government is not committing some torturous act. Or indeed, so would be your school bully calling you 4-eyes. Imagine how many children are marred for life by that bully. Yet we resist calling it illegal in any sense.

In a general sense, all requirement made by the government, upon us cause us mental pain in some respect. Does that make them all torture? Of course not. So let us forget your construction of the word "torture". And indeed, let us forget about the idea of torture in general as it applies to our civil duties. The word, as I've mentioned earlier has no place in the discussion. After all, I'm compelled by law to notify the police if I witness my entire family being killed in a freak threshing accident- no matter what mental anguish it causes me to speak of it. I'm compelled, by law (in most states), to lend assistance to a person who can't breath, if I'm liscenced in CPR, no matter that the person might have some communicable dissease.

The law compells, and the results are real dangers of mental or physical harm. Yet this is not considered torture (nor should it be). Torture is not the question you need to be asking, but rather, is the harm or chance of harm outweighed by the benefit to society.

[vaulos]

Why bring retoric into it?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Torture is not the question you need to be asking, but rather, is the harm or chance of harm outweighed by the benefit to society.

And what exact benefit to society would this bill present?

[vaulos]

I have no idea. And, I don't pretend to (as you would see if you read my previous posts).

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I did read your previous posts. I've read every post in this thread.
Now, having read the update added to the original article, Cosgrove's logic is as follows...

Delegate Cosgrove has reportedly written an email reply to a blogger who asked him what his rationale for the bill could be. According to her, Delegate Cosgrove says that the bill is intended to "reduce the number of "trashcan" babies that are born and then abandoned in trashcans, toilets, or elsewhere to die from exposure or worse."

Now, this is a case of "she said he said," but if this tidbit is true then Cosgrove's an even bigger fucker than I thought in the first place. The bill specifically states that any case of "fetal death" that occurs outside the supervision of a doctor is to be reported. In Virginia, fetal death is legally defined as...

a product of human conception, regardless of the duration of pregnancy

However, the CDC defines fetal death as...

A death that occurs at 20 or more weeks of gestation constitutes a fetal death, and after 28 weeks it is considered a late fetal death

Now, it is possible that Cosgrove intended for the CDC's definition to be the applicable one within the language of his bill. But even so, if his whole purpose for the bill is to reduce the number of abandoned infants...what do misscairrages have to do with anything? I mean, any miscairrage after the second trimester would undoubtedly require medical attention in the first place, would it not? And if a woman miscairries within the first 8 weeks of her pregnancy, and the CDC doesn't even care about that statistical information, what's the fucking point? Could it be that Cosgrove doesn't have one? Could it be that he was trying to push a political agenda and it backfired in his face? Could he really be so clueless and stupid as to think it wouldn't have produced an uproar of outrage in the first place?

[Riggen]

You are mixing the legal question with the torture question. I am attempting to seperate them. I don't care whether they are legal or not.

This is nonsense. I haven't once discussed the legality of this law. Sounds to me like you're getting your conversations confused.

The only question that I'm interested in is whether or not asking someone to do those things is unreasonable on the basis of being torture.

And if you were paying attention you'd know that's a question that I answered days ago, and with every posting since. That it would indeed be unreasonable on those grounds has been established, and confirmed in the very words of the man responsible for the bill--as quoted in my last post.

As to the rest, by your definition, paying taxes is torture.

Wrong. Paying taxes is not pleasant but doesn't directly cause "great mental or physical pain." The government goes to some lengths to make the process reasonable, and provides numerous exemptions and legal options for relief in cases of hardship.

In a general sense, all requirement made by the government, upon us cause us mental pain in some respect.

As an absolute this is disputable, but not important enough to seriously bother with. Few government requirements cause us "great" mental pain. It makes no sense to equate annoyance with torture.

Torture is not the question you need to be asking,

Don't look at me. You're the one who asked why this was torture.

but rather, is the harm or chance of harm outweighed by the benefit to society.

I answered this question days ago too. Why didn't you ask it yourself to begin with?

[vaulos]

Riggen- You and I probably agree that this law is rather silly and shouldn't be enacted. What we disagree on is the reason why.

You contend that it is torture; I contend that any talk of "torture" is merely retorical and of no real value to the actual question. And by way of explanation, I have given several examples of similar "great mental pains" inflicted upon people via governmental duties, which we believe to be good and proper. Similar pains, similar purposes for the law. The only difference is whether the law itself serves some real purpose or not. And I would submit to you that this is a question of practicality, and not one of "torture".

[Embar Angylwrath]

Riggen -

When you use the word "torture" in this context, you diminish its true import. Perhaps you mean that the law would inflict undue emotional stress without benefit? Which is a far cry from torture.

[Riggen]

Actually, no. We agree that the law is impractical. I've been shouting from the rooftops since Sunday that it's worthless and unwarranted. It's partly because the reporting of miscarriage has no practical value that it's torture. Aside from that, I find the comparison of this and civil duty to be absurd. Paying taxes can be stressful, but no way is it even remotely in the same ballpark as being forced to conduct what's basically a postmortem on your own miscarriage.

Embar, I disagree. Torture is not just a hot poker in the eye, or getting your fingernails pulled out to coerce a confession.

The infliction of substantial needless pain is torture, period. This law would have inflicted substantial needless pain. It's really very simple. It's indignity. It's humiliation. It's being forced to confront the embodiment of your worst nightmares and hold it up for judgement. In every sense I can think of, it's torture.

If you disagree, then so be it. But I have yet to see a single persuasive argument otherwise.

[vaulos]

That is because you are close minded about it. It's silly to call it torture. Might as well call it torture when your mother yells and you and washes your mouth out for saying "damn". Unnecessary, and physicially and mentally painful. Oh lordy...oh the torture of childhood!

[Relbeek Einre]

I disagree with Riggen's definition of "torture", too.

For one thing, "needless" is not a qualifier. You may electrocute a man's nuts to get him to talk about where he planted a pipe bomb, but it's still torture.

[Riggen]

That's just plain dumb Vaulos, and it repeats in the same vein as most of your examples--which is the real reason none of your arguments have been persuasive. GREAT pain. SUBSTANTIAL pain. These have been my characterizations of torturous suffering. Yet somehow you translate that to mean a slight stinging sensation, and that inspires nothing but the urge to mock. You've repeatedly ignored significant details of my argument, confused things I've said with other posters, and cast aside the qualifiers I've used as they've proven inconvenient. And you think I'm closed minded? From my perspective you're just not making competent arguments. If you'd only dealt with my complete reasoning specifically as I presented it, rather than as your fantasies dictated, I might have allowed for the possibility that you could get somewhere.

Relbeek, there's no need to disagree on those grounds because my usage is not mutually exclusive of other forms of the term. My contention with Embar was that torture was not specifically limited to electrocuting a man's nuts for the purpose of extracting information. With that in mind, the deliberate infliction of pain--substantial pain, whether physical or psychological--for no useful purpose pretty much automatically falls within the bounds of torture. Clearer?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

With that in mind, the deliberate infliction of pain--substantial pain, whether physical or psychological--for no useful purpose pretty much automatically falls within the bounds of torture. Clearer?

Then by your own definition, this law is torture. Legally requiring someone to perform a post mortem on their own fetus is, wether you admit it or not, substantial pain. And since we all seem to be in agreement that there is no useful purpose for this law, does that not fit the description you just gave of what you feel torture is?

Click the link again. Read the clarification and update linked at the top of the page. A multitude of women who have suffered miscairrages e-mailed Cosgrove with their complaints, and expressed their outrage. Now, I'd wager they know what they're talking about a hell of a lot more than you do, seeing as how they've actually endured the trauma of a miscairrage. You're in no position to argue with them, honestly. Unless you're a woman who's suffered a miscairrage but I'm under the impression you're a man. Please, enlighten us if you have actually personally suffered a miscairrage. In fact, give us the age of the fetus, the weight, the gender, as well as your full name, and sexual history.
You have 12 hours.

[Relbeek Einre]

I also disagree with that, Riggen. If I get decked outside a bar by a random drunk, I was assaulted, not tortured.

[Riggen]

...

My troll warning indicator is flashing pretty brightly right about now, but I'll give the two of you the benefit of a doubt.

Jarochai--Lay off the wacky weed for a just a little bit please. I'm agreeing, not arguing with those women, and have been doing so for the whole stinking thread. You're confusing me with Vaulos.

Relbeek--A random drunk decking you without provocation is still not causing you "great" or "substantial" pain. I'm getting really tired of endlessly repeating that refrain only to have it ignored--I just got done reaming Vaulos for the same thing. There are other issues--how deliberate is punching some random passerby while functioning with impaired judgement? Going back to that whole issue of compulsion that I hit on earlier, I'd add that in such an exchange you're not exactly in the drunk's power, either. Try again.

[Rsak]

The struggle of subjectivity!