quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

A furor has erupted in Colorado following the announcement that there would be no murder charges forthcoming against one Ms. Lane.
Ms.Lane lured her victim/s to her house by advertising on-line that she had baby clothes to sell
When Michelle Wilkins,pregnant showed up the woman beat and choked her than cut her fetus out of her belly.
Miss Wilkins survived,the fetus didn't....and those are the murder charges not being filed.


Now I know this brings us to person hood amendments and I understand the issue their and womans re-production rights and all that.
I firmly believe in a womans right to choose...but this young woman had chosen,and she was bringing a young life into this world.
How is what Lane did not murder ?
According to Colorado law(which has thrice failed to pass a person hood amendment) it isn't murder unless the fetus takes a breath outside the womb.


While I would hope this isn't an issue that comes up ever again,once is too much.
This baby was supposed to have been born,surely laws can be drafted that while retaining a woman's rights,also take into account the heinous act that was perpetrated here.
Is this a slippery slope that we dare not go down ?
How doesn't Lane face murder charges ?
Opinions ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I hate to sound like I am either defending Lane or trying to derail but does Colorado allow late term abortion? If they do then they have declared the baby to not be a baby. You can't logically charge murder for killing something that the law says can be treated like a tumor.
That said this is a heinous crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. This, unfortunately, happens several times a year.

quote:

Pervi Patel, an Indiana woman, was sentenced Monday to 20 years in prison for not having a proper abortion.

According to the Chicago Tribune Patel opted for the convenience of abortifacient drugs from China, rather than seeking the assistance of a doctor. When the infant was born premature and still alive, the new mother left him on the floor to die, and then threw the baby in a trash can.

Judge Elizabeth Hurley took a moment to scold Patel for her actions at sentencing.

“You, Miss Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means. If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so,” Hurley said. “You planned a course of action and took matters into your hands and chose not to go to a doctor.”

Apparently, Miss Patel will be serving time in prison, not for killing her baby–but for doing it on the cheap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. This usually means the discovery of a catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby that would be delivered if the pregnancy were to continue to term. Occasionally a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication. (See "A Special Note About Fetal Anomaly")
From a colorado doctor.
http://www.drhern.com/en/abortion-services/third-trimester-abortion.html



A biit from wikipedia
Among many other studies, [5][6][7] a study done by Isabelle Horon, DrPH, of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that looked at pregnancy-associated deaths from 1993 to 1998 found that homicide was the leading cause of death in women who were pregnant. Homicides accounted for 20% of deaths, compared to 6% of deaths among non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Heart disease was found to be the second leading cause of death for pregnant women accounting for 19% of deaths during pregnancy.[8]

ABC News claim that about 20 percent of women who die during pregnancy are victims of murder.[9] However according to the CDC "The pregnancy-associated homicide ratio was 1.7 per 100,000 live births".[10] In other words the chances of a pregnant woman being murdered was around 0.0017%.[11] However, a study by Jeani Chang and coworkers, published in the American Journal of Public Health, showed that pregnancy associated deaths reported by the CDC underestimate the problem. According to their data, the rate in Maryland is 10.5 per 100,000 live births, a much higher figure.[12]

Isabelle Horon and Diana Cheng published a Maryland study in 2001 in the Journal of the American Medical Association which found "a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause":[4]

[T]he killings span racial and ethnic groups. In cases whose details were known, 67 percent of women were killed with firearms. Many women were slain at home — in bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens — usually by men they knew. Husbands. Boyfriends. Lovers.[4]

The suggestion that this is the primary cause of prenatal maternal death, however, suffers a lack of fully reliable data. Homicide was the second-leading cause of death among women ages 20 to 24 and fifth among women ages 25–34 in 1999. The top cause of death in both age groups is accidents.[13]<snip>

If you cant tell the difference between a woman deciding whats right for her or her fetus, due to medical issues of the fetus or with the woman is highly different than someone CUTTING a WANTED child out of her, then man you are indeed fucking clueless.

The bitch who did this should go away for life, no matter what....
Personally from what i have read, shes stark staring bonkers, and needs severe mental health care and never be allowed out again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

One key point that is not being brought up here, but assumed: The actual birth of the child. Not just that, but the good health of the mother and child after the process. While this process is done several hundred (if not thousands) times a day across the nation; there are cases in which either or both did not survive the operation. Or there were complications that places one or both in differing levels of additional care. That all of you are assuming this process would be done correctly and without problem is a notable elements in your arguments.

At the moment, assuming the child is given birth can not be ruled as a certainty. Nor as a 'most likely' of outcomes. Some problems develop later in the growth that our currently level of medical knowledge and/or technology can not detect.

So try to keep those future event assumptions in check.

From a legal perspective, this is a hard problem to solve. "Battery" seems to limiting, but "Murder" can not work. That there should exist something in between, since the most obvious concept; manslaughter in the 1st, equally can not be used. That we may have to invent a criminal concept that takes this particularly heinous act into consideration.

What are the motivations of the lady whom attacked the mother exactly? That too seems to play a huge element in all of this.

More so, is that this event is being pushed for political purpose here. That a mother lost something dear seems irrelevant to most pushing the political bullshit. On all sides here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Wow. You have just compared this sickening attack with a c-section where the baby did not live?

I recently had a c-section and this was NOT how it was done.

Also suggesting that their are mitigating circumstances such as problems in the last couple of months is pretty screwed up.

And the knife wielding nutso? You are concerned about what could have possibly been mentally wrong with her? Umm. . . A LOT OF THINGS! (Hence execution being the kindest choice.)

Then there is the fact that you think that the outrage over this is just political.

Show some humanity. This woman lost a child. Brutally. "Something dear to her," would be a piece of jewelry or other inanimate object.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

One key point that is not being brought up here, but assumed: The actual birth of the child. Not just that, but the good health of the mother and child after the process. While this process is done several hundred (if not thousands) times a day across the nation; there are cases in which either or both did not survive the operation. Or there were complications that places one or both in differing levels of additional care. That all of you are assuming this process would be done correctly and without problem is a notable elements in your arguments.

At the moment, assuming the child is given birth can not be ruled as a certainty. Nor as a 'most likely' of outcomes. Some problems develop later in the growth that our currently level of medical knowledge and/or technology can not detect.

So try to keep those future event assumptions in check.

From a legal perspective, this is a hard problem to solve. "Battery" seems to limiting, but "Murder" can not work. That there should exist something in between, since the most obvious concept; manslaughter in the 1st, equally can not be used. That we may have to invent a criminal concept that takes this particularly heinous act into consideration.

What are the motivations of the lady whom attacked the mother exactly? That too seems to play a huge element in all of this.

More so, is that this event is being pushed for political purpose here. That a mother lost something dear seems irrelevant to most pushing the political bullshit. On all sides here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm guessing our Burgess Meridith has fallen into that category.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)