Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

I don't think abortion has anything to do with it. The real question should be: should this woman be charged with murder for refusing to give consent for a medical procedure?

I won't disagree that this redneck was stupid in her decision, and how she got there (have you seen a picture? I don't know why she's worried about a C-section scar...). This is a real tough one. Do you prosecute someone for refusing treatment that could save their own life? What about someone who refuses a C-section on "natural childbirth" or religious grounds?

 

This case is pretty clear...for me. The baby was full term and therefore could exist outside the mother's womb. The mother was in no danger, however, her selfish act clearly put the child in danger. She was forewarned and decided to disregard the directives of her physician. Her lack of action lead to the death of her baby.

Manslaughter, anyone.

Besides, if you've seen this skanks picture, you would understand how rediculous it is for her to be concerned with a C section scar. People like this make me scared to bring another child into this world.

 

I imagine your position would be the same if treatment was refused on religious grounds?

 

That's an emphatic yes.

 

The replies above illustrate the faulty logic of the pro-choice position. Viability is truly just a ill-defined point in time. Why should a fetus garner additional rights just because this woman decided to run a risk of a child dying at birth rather than have an earlier abortion? After all, many pro-choice supporters would have said that an earlier abortion could be viewed as humane because these twins wouldn't have much of a life with their mentally ill mother.

As regards the question of criminality, and setting aside the issue of whether this woman had the mental capacity to be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide, I do not think a woman making this awful decision should be charged with a crime. This is different that an active attempt to kill a fetus. A case could be made that the state should intervene and force her to have the C-section, however, though I'd be a bit quesy about giving the state and the legal system that responsibility. Sometimes an unusual set of facts and circumstances conspire to produce a tragedy that doesn't come with an easy or, in this case, mentally sound scapegoat.

Final comment: the circumstances of this case are too unusual for it to take on broader importance ... or at least it shouldn't have that impact.

 

I'm pro-choice. I do not think this is, or should be, prosecutable. Nor do I think abortion - or my views on it - are even remotely relevant.

Agreed. Who's liable if the woman (or fetus) dies during a forced C-section? If the state had the power to force consent in this case, why not forced organ donation (like kidneys, or bone marrow) if you are the only available match? "I'm sorry sir, if you refuse to donate bone marrow to this person, I'll be forced to charge you with attempted homicide."

I doubt it will.

This is tragic, but I don't see how it's avoidable. Sometimes people are just idiots.

 

I agree that the abortion issue is not relevant here and that abortion rights should have little to do with the woman's criminality. The case is only linked to abortion in that both involve the problematic determination of when a fetus garners "human" rights, which is pretty squishy ground.

 

True, but given that this was the third term, I think there's not a choice issue here. No one's fighting for third-term abortion on demand. Re-read Roe if you don't believe me. Also remember that "partial-birth abortion," ill-defined as it is, refers to a second-term procedure.

 

It's more logical than "life begins at conception" by a long shot. Are fetuses counted in the census? Why not? Do you get a tax dedcution for them? Why not? Is the pill murder? Why not?

 

Nice try hotshot...

Setup the straw man and knock him down...

 

Here Dave - start with this premise. "Consciously and intentionally killing a newborn human child is homicide because it is immoral to take the life of another person unless it is in self-defense."

If we can agree on that, next step is to avoid for the moment defining the words "life" and "person" and "child" in order to avoid arguments based on semantics and strawman-type arguments like you've stated above (ie., if a fetus is not a child for tax purposes, then it is a not a person for any purpose and we can kill it). Then we can focus on the real issue of whether terminating a pregnancy is moral and the related issue of whether a fetus has any rights.

Now, go back in time to the point where it is logical to state where "consciously and intentionally killing" the fetus is not immoral. There are, I think, only three logical answers:

1. anytime before birth. This answer posits that immoral killing can only begin at or after birth because the fetus is not until that time a living being and further posits that unborn fetuses have no rights. Be my guest to have this logical position and defend it.

2. at conception. This answer posits that any attempt to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not the woman knows she is even pregnant, is an attempt to kill a embryo/fetus that eventually is very likely to be born if brought to term and also the pregnancy and birth is not likely to endanger the life or health of the mother. Therefore, the act is the moral equivalent of a homicide after birth, unless the life or health of the woman is threatened, which would be the moral equivalent under law of a self-defence.

3. at the time the woman becomes aware of the pregnancy. This answer posits the same rationale as #2 but would distinguish the time period between conception and the date a pregnancy is discovered on the basis that the termination of a fetus/embryo's existence in this period was not conscious and/or intentional.

The problem with viability is that it is an artificial date on which to give the fetus rights (under state law) and make criminal or illegal the woman's and doctor's conduct (under state law). Viability is a compromise date, but is not in any way a logical point to distinguish between moral (or legal if you prefer) and immoral (or illegal if you prefer) conduct.

 

I could crash the server by listing artificial dates and artificial numbers in our law code.

 

Not exactly a powerful argument as to why viability is a logical date to draw the line between conduct that the state may or may not make criminal. Especially since this artificial date is not in federal or state codified laws but rather was found by the Supreme Court somewhere in the 9th and 14th amendments.

You have to hand it to Blackmun - it was a piece of genius to write the opinion that has handed women judicial absolution for the killing of some million or so would-be people a year. Apparently, the blood-letting, suctioning and vacuuming of developing babies doesn't bug you in your haste to create a flip argument why it should be a human right to do this.

 

Provided they made it through childbirth, or provided they didn't take Mommy with them when they died.

Why do pro-lifers pretend every abortion is for fun?

In any event, that's nowt to do with this issue, which is whether the state can force surgery on someone. This is a tough call. As a good small-l libertarian, I should hate the idea. But, I should also hate the idea of the state forcing the wacko wing of Christian Science to allow their children to have surgery and transfusions too, and I don't.

Still, the law already says the state has an interest in third-trimester fetii, especially in this case since we're talking about actual childbirth, as opposed to abortion. I don't know if I send this woman to prison, but I certainly give the doctor the power to hit this woman over the head and deliver the baby in a way to save its life.

 

Ill-defined ? Hardly.

Despite modern technology, no fetus of less than 21 weeks gestation has survived outside the womb.

So, make it 19 weeks to be safe - abortions before this time are fine with me.

 

I can't get over how horribly this woman is being treated. First, the media is plastering this horrid picture of her. I'm sure she's no beauty queen, but this is just plain unfair. Second, it's not clear that her reasons were purely cosmetic. As routine as it is, it's still a pretty scary procedure (which, btw, she ended up doing). Third, she (and no sane individual) would ever have imagined being prosecuted for homicide. The only depraved indifference I can see is the way this woman is being savaged. What a world we live in.

 

shallow as an old stagnant pool....