RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 1:18:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Age of consent there is 16. Unless the father is 16 or older, they cannot charge him.

I, personally, believe all women should be tested along with their pregnancy test. But then you run the risk of running such women away from any prenatal care. If a woman tests positive while pregnant, treatment should not be an option, it should be mandatory. But, again, what pregnant woman who is addicted to any drug will risk that? Then we run into the "invasion of privacy" group.

I really wish they would make it that a fetus has legal status once it reaches the age of viability. And what I mean is at the age a baby could survive outside the womb.... on its own. 2 million dollars to keep a 20 week gestational baby alive after delivery on every monitor and machine available is not what I would consider having reached that age.

Age of consent might be 16, but didn't the actual impregnation occur when she was 15?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 1:20:25 AM)

You cannot hold a 15 year old boy as an adult and charge him with statutory rape.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 1:32:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You cannot hold a 15 year old boy as an adult and charge him with statutory rape.

You are missing my point. I don't care how old he is. The salient point is that she is not old enough to sign a contract to buy encyclopedias. She is deemed to be unable to contract. She is a minor. She cannot be expected to adhere to the standards that those who have attained majority age are held to. She cannot be expected to be able to make decisions at the level that those who are of majority age are deemed to be able to make.

Theoretically, it WAS Statutory rape. The age of the sperm donor mitigates.

The state of MS is saying that she cannot contract to buy encyclopedias in the installment plan due to her age, but she is old enough to be able to understand the medical consequences of ingestion of illegal substances.

Do you get this or not?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 1:38:30 AM)

You are neglecting one fact. At 15, she can be charged as an adult depending on the crime. Its that point that is before the Supreme Court there.



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 1:53:45 AM)

This is not the only attempt to introduce sneaky prosecutions for exercising a right to abort a fetus. This happened here in July 2009.

"Tegan Simone Leach, 19, of Cairns, became the first woman to be charged with the offence in half a century after using a smuggled pill to abort her foetus.
Her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan, 21, is charged with attempting to procure and supply drugs to procuring an abortion."

http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225747378390#ixzz1QMytTKXx

Fortunately both were acquitted but the case should: (a) never have been brought in the first place and; (b) the case should never gone as far as an actual trial.

Having said that the US attempts seem far more insidious. Why are women being prosecuted for exercising their rights? Or being punished for their lifestyle?



Hippiekinkster -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 2:04:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You are neglecting one fact. At 15, she can be charged as an adult depending on the crime. Its that point that is before the Supreme Court there.
Yes, you are right. Somehow I missed that. Es tut mir Lied.



thishereboi -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 4:26:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

Are we going to try people for first degree murder for having a disease?


Apparently these guys are going to...

http://www.live5news.com/story/14973134/police-baby-died-from-morphine-in-breast-milk


Im going to address the rest in a minute. This isnt the same type of case, boi. The baby was born alive, and killed afterwards. A clear case of murder since the mother should have known better.


Julia asked "Are we going to try people for first degree murder for having a disease?"

I posted a link showing where they are trying a women for homicide for having a disease.

No one mentioned if the baby was alive or not. It had nothing to do with the question or answer.



thishereboi -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 4:29:28 AM)

nm...you already answered this



Lucylastic -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 4:40:43 AM)

attempted murder..apologies boi ...
the point being that the time is getting to the point where poor/young, women are going to be afraid to seek pre natal care, , family planning healthcare, reproductive care , and not to mention abortion.
Its become a slippery damn slope very very fast and a fucking disgrace.




juliaoceania -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 7:31:02 AM)

I am reminded of the Handmaid's Tale[:'(]



Charnegui -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 7:58:39 AM)

*not having read further than first page*

The worldwide convention of the rights of children says:
Children do have the right to be educated, taken care of and so on.... and so on.
It also states that the society needs to provide these rights if parents can't.

So why convict someone of murdering a foetus, when there are more children inhouse, whom are very good taken care for.
In our laws suicide is also penatable, but rarely executed, because someone who tries to, needs help in stead of jailtime.

I just saw a documentary which stated that the US has more convicted people than other countries. And it has been proven that harsh sentencing doesnot work for the best. The recidive in Holland is far less than in (for instance) the US.

*note* I do not judge your systems.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/26/2011 8:29:38 AM)

quote:

So why convict someone of murdering a foetus, when there are more children inhouse, whom are very good taken care for.
In our laws suicide is also penatable, but rarely executed, because someone who tries to, needs help in stead of jailtime.


I think what you will find is that many believe the age of viability weighs heavily in that decision. Medically, and legally, a physician doesnt have to stop pre-term labor before 20 weeks gestation. What I mean by viability is the ability for the baby to live outside of the womb. The law states abortions are legal up until that age. Most places put it around 22 weeks.

Up until that point, its her body. After that point, its a shared body, if you will. She has made that decision, and its her responsibility to take care of the "fetus".



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 7:52:50 PM)

Excuse me if I am ignorant of US law on this issue but here for a criminal conviction to be made, intent to commit the crime must be proved. Looking at the OP, it appears to me quite difficult to establish intent in any of the cases there, on the information available. If so shouldn't the prosecutions fail?

Bearing this in mind, doesn't this suggest that what is really happening here is an obnoxious attempt to legally intimidate women into accepting a role as primarily baby factories? Surely these laws are being challenged - they seem to contravene basic human rights to me. Someone please tell me they are.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 7:56:24 PM)

Deliberate ingestion of rat poisoning wouldnt be intent? Cocaine is known to affect a fetus... again intent. If you are an alcoholic and leave a bar drunk, get behind the wheel and kill someone, does intent have to be proven in your country? The fact that you were drunk and driving, here, is intent enough.



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 8:24:28 PM)

My understanding is that the woman who took rat poison was trying to commit suicide after her partner deserted her. You're surely not suggesting that a person in that state of mind is capable of forming a rational deliberate decision to kill her foetus by killing herself are you?

Equally how does taking a line of cocaine while pregnant constitute deliberate intent to murder a foetus? If it does constitute intent then every woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant has to be charged with attempted murder of their foetus. Is that what you want?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 8:50:58 PM)

quote:

My understanding is that the woman who took rat poison was trying to commit suicide after her partner deserted her. You're surely not suggesting that a person in that state of mind is capable of forming a rational deliberate decision to kill her foetus by killing herself are you?


Nope, but that also doesnt mean she shouldnt be held accountable either. Look at Susan Smith... South Carolina if you care to google her. Clearly not in her right mind, but also held accountable for the deaths of her children. This case would be no different.

quote:

Equally how does taking a line of cocaine while pregnant constitute deliberate intent to murder a foetus? If it does constitute intent then every woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant has to be charged with attempted murder of their foetus. Is that what you want?


The intent is to harm the fetus. Thats how the courts view it. And it IS something the lawmakers wanted to do.. mandatory drug testing with referral to the courts if found positive. It didnt hold up under the Supreme Court.

Look, hiding behind an addiction here just doesnt work. It doesnt work for the alcoholic who kills someone by driving over them. It doesnt help the druggie who commits murder, or bodily injury, during the act of robbing a store.

Should the girl with cocaine be charged with murder? If addicted, I would lean more towards manslaughter. The girl with rat poisoning? Guilty of murder by reason of insanity, perhaps.



defiantbadgirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 9:00:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the time is getting to the point where poor/young, women are going to be afraid to seek pre natal care, , family planning healthcare, reproductive care , and not to mention abortion.
Its become a slippery damn slope very very fast and a fucking disgrace.


Some parents are afraid to take injured children to the ER. An old co-worker told me her toddler was injured when he fell off a couch and hit his eye on the corner of a coffee table. She refused to take him to the hospital because of the way the injury looked. She was afraid her child would be taken away and she'd be arrested for child abuse.



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 9:18:34 PM)

quote:

quote:


quote:

Equally how does taking a line of cocaine while pregnant constitute deliberate intent to murder a foetus? If it does constitute intent then every woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant has to be charged with attempted murder of their foetus. Is that what you want?


The intent is to harm the fetus. Thats how the courts view it. And it IS something the lawmakers wanted to do.. mandatory drug testing with referral to the courts if found positive. It didnt hold up under the Supreme Court.

Look, hiding behind an addiction here just doesnt work. It doesnt work for the alcoholic who kills someone by driving over them. It doesnt help the druggie who commits murder, or bodily injury, during the act of robbing a store.



She has been charged with attempted murder, not with attempting to cause harm or assault. Nor is it clear that her alleged cocaine habit had any connection with her miscarriage, from the information I've seen:
"When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence. " OP

It appears that she was charged only after information about her lifestyle (alleged drug habit) became known. To me this suggests that what is being policed here is not her actions, but her lifestyle. Whatever the case, the upshot of all this is this poor girl is facing a life sentence. From what I can see (which isn't a lot) it all sounds horribly and tragically contrived. I wish you could see the terrifying absurdity and grave implications of this.

I'm relieved to hear you report that some aspects of these laws have been successfully challenged in the courts, though I'm unclear whether mandatory drug testing or the "depraved heart" laws were the subject of the Court's ruling. If you have that information, I'd really appreciate a clarification.



Termyn8or -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 9:43:30 PM)

I read the responses but..........

I got in hot water with CM last time I commented on abortion, it's not happening agian. I'll avoid excessive opinionating this time.

Now abortion is the taking of a human life and there is no real argument about that. Each of us was a fetus at one time. So just forget that avenue of argument, and I will stick to the subject.

If I were the defense lawyer I would work for free, even though I know that abortion is premeditated murder, and actually a conspiracy as well. It's just not called that because it is not illegal. Hello reality. But these prosections should never happen because any defense lawyer should be able to get the charges dropped. SHOULD. It's very simple.

Roe v Wade is the law of the land because the supreme court said so, That a Woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases which due to that ruling, includes killing an unborn fetus inside her body. Are you with me so far ?

That means it is a Woman's legal right to kill her unborn child, it really is that simple. Her problems with school, money or whatever, or even just not wanting a kid is sufficient under the law, in THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY. The home rule state bullshit might work with issues of the Constitution, but not on a supreme court ruling. The prosecutors are fools and probably hoping for incompetence in the defense to bolster their conviction record and appeal to the religious types. If she doesn't get proper representation it might just happen.

Now if a Woman decides the time is not right to have a kid, she can kill it with the help of a doctor, well not a doctor, a medical practitioner because doctors do not kill. The Hippocratic oath is quite clear on this. But these things happen and abortion is necessary because of several reasons. All of them involve the status of - this kid is not convenient for me right now - KILL IT.

Now if a Woman has the right to do that, whatever she does that might hurt or kill the fetus is fair as well. That's if equal protectiuon under the law truly exists, which I doubt. She must have been a target for some reason. Whatever. Once it hits the news, you are fucked in a trial usually.

So if she can hire a medical practitioner as a hitman, or just go to the guy with the coat hanger in an alley with inpunity, how is snorting a couple of lines any different ? Or even smoking crack ? What about the morning after pill, and even worse, the one that is specifically made to induce a maicarriage ? It is not really different except for intent.

So if she intends to have an abortion and is hooked on crack and that kills the fetus, that is OK. But if she wanted the baby and killed the fetus with crack it is not. That is preposterous.

And that is why, while I would vote for Ron Paul for President, I would never want to see him on the supreme court. He introduced such a bill on the federal level which is pretty much what this Woman is charged under. It's just not a federal case - yet.

T^T



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (6/27/2011 9:52:02 PM)

quote:

Roe v Wade is the law of the land because the supreme court said so, That a Woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases which due to that ruling, includes killing an unborn fetus inside her body. Are you with me so far ?


You keep leaving out the most important part of that ruling.

quote:

The Hippocratic oath is quite clear on this. But these things happen and abortion is necessary because of several reasons.


There are a few forms of this oath, not all restrict a Dr from performing abortions.


quote:

Now if a Woman has the right to do that, whatever she does that might hurt or kill the fetus is fair as well. That's if equal protectiuon under the law truly exists, which I doubt. She must have been a target for some reason. Whatever. Once it hits the news, you are fucked in a trial usually.


When you figure out the important part you left out, you will see how the above isnt true.

quote:

So if she can hire a medical practitioner as a hitman, or just go to the guy with the coat hanger with inpunity, how is snorting a couple of lines any different ? Or even smoking crack ? What about ther morning after pill, and even worse, the one that is specifically made to induce a maicarriage ? It is not really different except for intent.


Again, the missing important part makes this not true as well.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875