Conquer Club

TheProwler wrote:A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

tzor wrote:Accessory (legal term)

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

Symmetry wrote:Seems like a good thing that abortion isn't a crime.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Seems like a good thing that abortion isn't a crime.

Yes, a woman could lose her medical license for being involved in one.

riskllama wrote:all pro lifers should be killed and there organs sold to China.

Dukasaur wrote:

riskllama wrote:all pro lifers should be killed and there organs sold to China.

their organs.

It's not rocket science. Just Grade Three English.

tzor wrote:

TheProwler wrote:A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

"It's only a blob of tissue ..."

"No you can't see an ultrasound ... that's an invasion of your privacy and the equivalent of rape ..."

"Why no, that blob of tissue can't feel a thing ..."

TheProwler wrote:

tzor wrote:

TheProwler wrote:A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

"It's only a blob of tissue ..."

"No you can't see an ultrasound ... that's an invasion of your privacy and the equivalent of rape ..."

"Why no, that blob of tissue can't feel a thing ..."

Dude, you are really stretching here....

A woman walks into an abortion clinic.......and gets conned?!?!?!?!


I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:Yes, a woman could lose her medical license for being involved in one.

Huh?

TheProwler wrote:I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

Symmetry wrote:It's fairly common nowadays in the US for a woman not to be given the best advice. Antiabortion activists have made it that way. Some states require women to be told that they're at risk of cancer, or mental problems if they have an abortion.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's fairly common nowadays in the US for a woman not to be given the best advice. Antiabortion activists have made it that way. Some states require women to be told that they're at risk of cancer, or mental problems if they have an abortion.

Actually you are at risk for mental problems if you just give birth ... it's known as postpartum depression.

Cancer risks are more complicated. Here is the executive summary. The conversion of breast tissue to active lactating organs is a two step process. The first step promotes the growth of cells that, left unaltered, could have a increase risk of becoming cancerous. The second step converts these cells into cells that have a reduced risk. Thus any abortion that is performed before a completed birth cycle has a change of simply increasing the potentially cancerous cells, but after a successful birth cycle these cells are already converted and thus there is no risk of an artificially aborted cycle. (Note a natural abortion generally does not trigger the cell growth that is a result of a healthy embryo implanting in the womb.)

tzor wrote:

TheProwler wrote:I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

But once again, it depends on how it is made to be illegal. In many ways it could be easily illegal and the woman might not even know it. The doctor may not have admitting privileges, for example, which would make the procedure illegal under a state law, but the woman might not know either the law or that the person fails to meet the requirement.

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1]

•Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• In 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed, down 13% from 1.21 million in 2008. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, 1.7% of women aged 15–44 have an abortion [2]. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and at 2008 abortion rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]

warmonger1981 wrote:The people who wrote that article can't break down fractions. Four out if ten =1/5

warmonger1981 wrote:2/5 . must have hit the 1 on accident.

warmonger1981 wrote:I think that women are irresponsible. Half of the pregnancies are on accident. Complete irresponsibility. A man should be able to drop a load without a woman getting pregnant.