LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
quote:
At what point do you think its safe for a woman to use while pregnant? I dont consider it safe at any point.
That is not my point, it never was my point. My point, which you didn't address, is how do we know when drug use took place? Did the woman use before or after your age of viability? How is this proven in a court of law? How do we correlate infant mortality with the drug use which may or may not have caused a death? How can anyone justify locking up a woman for 20 years... I would not think using drugs is a premeditated act of murder.
How do we prove that drugs were involved? Uh...an autopsy. You find drugs in the infants system, how else would they have gotten there if not taken by the mother?
quote:
quote:
And what is wrong with holding someone accountable for their actions?
Again, my point isn't about that, it is about your claim of viability, and if a fetus is indeed viable, why not induce labor and prevent it from being damaged by drugs and alcohol?
One can only assume by your continued assertion on this that you believe an abortion can be sought at any time during the pregnancy. Medical tests can determine the development of the fetus and its liklihood of survival. If one child is born at 24 weeks and survives, statistically, 24 weeks has just become "viable." But that is in no way to be confused with "likely to survive." If a doctor induced labor at 24 weeks just because the mother wanted to continue being a drug addict, he would lose his license.
quote:
quote:
I gave the costs for those infants.
My point had nothing to do with costs of caring for those infants. My point is that there is not a huge number of drug damaged babies that die from in uterine exposure, so the law is being put in place to give backdoor rights to the fetus before it is born.
You are really reaching here. According to your statements, a woman can do ANYTHING she wants while pregnant and not be held accountable. Being held accountable for knowingly engaging in behavior that will cause harm to an unborn child is NOT the same as "backdoor rights."
quote:
I would agree that substance addicted mothers do not need to be raising babies, or having them for that matter, my problem with this entire conversation is the penalty these nutty people want to apply to such behavior, which is like a murder one charge... for addicted women. I would also question whether FAS babies are lumped in with the substance damaged children, seeing this is the most pervasively damaging substance to fetuses in the USA. I would also stress, again, that it is not illegal to drink while pregnant... even though many other substances have not been shown to damage babies (marijuana for example)
Where in the world are YOUR sources of information? You keep stomping your feet looking for Tazzy's, but you make far fetched, totally uninformed statements like above?
You do not grasp all the factors of first degree murder (which is NOT simply premeditation). You keep going on and on about how it isn't "illegal" for a woman to drink while pregnant, regardless of how many times you have been told that CPS has and does charge women with child abuse for having an FAS baby. Of course, since you won't believe what I say, no sense in me providing what you would likely only call "biased" sources, so Google it yourself. But look at previous supreme court cases, anything else is an opinion piece if it doesn't contain legal citations.
As for marijuana use not causing damage to unborn children, do you have one legitimate source of that information? I realize you are in California where marijuana is medically available, but its use during pregnancy can be responsible for a multitude of problems including blindness. NORML is NOT a reliable source of marijuana dangers. By the way, I do believe that marijuana should be legalized and regulated.
quote:
quote:
I think You should note I made no special exception for pregnant women who abuse Alcohol. I think you are grasping at straws to try and make your argument.
It does not matter whether or not you make no exception for alcohol, the LAW does.
Again the LAW has available remedies for alcohol abuse of a pregnant woman who gives birth to an FAS baby. The woman will not maintain custody of her child. Obviously, she isn't going to be charged with murder if the baby is alive. If that baby dies as a result of FAS or the alcohol use of the mother, which can be proven through an autopsy, yes she can and should be charged with murder.
quote:
I wonder, are we going to start locking up women who smoke while pregnant? How about drink coffee? How far are we willing to take controlling what women do with their bodies? If I were a young child bearing woman I would be deeply disturbed by the government's interference into what we put into our bodies, especially as the age of viability gets earlier and earlier into a pregnancy. I have no problem with the viability argument, as long as women are allowed to deliver their viable infants early so that they will not be facing murder one charges because they have an infant that dies of SIDS and someone claims they smoked a joint at 6 weeks into their pregnancy and this caused it.
The key point here is that there is ZERO evidence of a baby DYING because a mother smokes or drinks coffee or eats chocolate.
You keep missing the point that it is REPEATED use of drugs or alcohol that is causing these babies to not survive, not a single drink or joint or whatever before they know they are pregnant.
Again, through medical tests, a doctor can determine what that child's chances of survival are outside the womb at 24 weeks. Therefore, a woman with an addiction problem faces the same issue of a "depraved heart" as if she gave bith. Actually, more so. Think about it for a minute. You want a woman to have COMPLETE control over her body, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. You are condoning a woman's right to use illegal drugs, to break the law, and face a prison sentence anyway. Exactly how do you believe that makes any sense? Someone who commits a robbery to get money for drugs and kills the store owner....should they not be responsible, or is it only because they are killing another adult? Drug addiction is not a defense to causing someone's death.
Now before you start squawking, no I don't believe it should translate into a life term imprisonment, but I do believe that the woman should be held accountable for her actions.
quote:
And again, for the last time, there is NO LAW THAT PROHIBITS DRINKING WHILE PREGNANT. Therefore there is no law that will lock up a woman for drinking and causing her child to be born with FAS. I think my point, which seems to have escaped you (maybe I am not communicating correctly) is that the women in the OP were prosecuted because the substances they used were illegal, and the most harmful substance in this country for a fetus is alcohol, and no one is doing anything about that.
Before you start saying that you don't keep bringing it up, two instances right above. And again, YES, there ARE laws in place that hold a woman legally accountable for causing her child to be born with FAS. Is there some reason you don't understand that these women can't be charged with murder if their child doesn't die? The "depraved heart" law (which I disagree with) specifically covers DEATH. These women are charged with these crimes and until the trials are complete and a verdict in, it is impossible to determine whether they will be found guilty or not.
[quote:]
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.
You do understand what that says, right? "...knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death." Of course, I realize you are going to pick apart that statement and go on about the word "likely" and how not each case results in death. Problem is that everyone knows it is a dangerous activity that can result in the user's death, so it isn't a far fetched idea that it can harm or kill your unborn child.
Look at that other part of manslaughter, which if not met, raises the charge to first degree...."...create a deadly situation." While drug use isn't always deadly, it often is.
Whether a woman is charged with first degree murder or manslaughter for knowingly doing something that causes the death of the child she is carrying, she is facing prison time. Even if the end result is giving birth to a child with FAS or drug addiction, the woman faces prison time for abuse. There is no logic to saying a woman can conduct herself however she chooses while pregnant because if a woman makes the decision to have the baby, she has also accepted the obligation to see to its health and well being, whether in-utero or after birth.
|
RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread