OT: What. The. HELL.

[SackAttack]

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

That's from an article about a Utah woman who's being charged with murder for failing to heed her doctor's advice. Apparently she was carrying twins, the doctor recommended a Caesarean section, the woman sought a couple other opinions, and one of the twins was stillborn. So she's being charged with homicide.

Now, I'm not sure what's more fucked up - the fact that she's being charged, or the fact that the Utah Supreme Court ruling means that she can be held legally liable for the unintentional death of an infant, while a conscious, willful termination of the fetus - abortion - is perfectly legal.

That just pisses me off. I'm wholeheartedly against abortion, I'll make no bones about that, but I'm not even going to say that it needs to be outlawed, because that's not my gripe in this particular instance.

What DOES need to happen here is consistency. Either the fetus enjoys all the legal protections of humans, and artificial termination thereof under ANY circumstances is murder, or that fetus is not human, and as such cannot be considered a homicide victim if terminated. Saying that it's okay to terminate it if the mother wants to be rid of it, but it's murder if she wants to keep it is absolutely ludicrous, and completely inconsistent.

[sabotai]

That's fucked up. She does what everyone shoudl do, which is seek second and third opinions, and in the process one of the twins "dies" and now she's being charged with homicide. That's fuckin' weak.

[randal7]

Problem is, some politician somewhere would have to either tell the millions who have had abortions they are (in essence) murderers, or tell someone who (for example) just miscarried after her car was hit by a drunk "Hey, it wasn't really a baby anyway". Politicians don't like taking positions that require testicular fortitiude.

[Tigercat]

Fetal homicide bills are sweeping the nation. Here in Kentucky they recently passed one as well, and the issue is on the steps of the nations capital as well.

I hate to frame this in these words, because on a personal level I too am against abortion, but I look at it this way: Allowing a woman to have an abortion can be seen as accepting that the baby and the woman are one, and that you can't grant rights of one over the other. Therfore decisions on the mutual rights go to the woman, since she is the only one that can make the decisions and ask for her rights. But in the case where a woman has made it clear that the baby will be born, the woman is in essence granting the baby its full rights. This would explain why a woman can also in some instances be held accountable for doing harmful things to herself and the baby while pregnant.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's from an article about a Utah woman who's being charged with murder for failing to heed her doctor's advice. Apparently she was carrying twins, the doctor recommended a Caesarean section, the woman sought a couple other opinions, and one of the twins was stillborn. So she's being charged with homicide.

Now, I'm not sure what's more fucked up - the fact that she's being charged, or the fact that the Utah Supreme Court ruling means that she can be held legally liable for the unintentional death of an infant, while a conscious, willful termination of the fetus - abortion - is perfectly legal.

That just pisses me off. I'm wholeheartedly against abortion, I'll make no bones about that, but I'm not even going to say that it needs to be outlawed, because that's not my gripe in this particular instance.

What DOES need to happen here is consistency. Either the fetus enjoys all the legal protections of humans, and artificial termination thereof under ANY circumstances is murder, or that fetus is not human, and as such cannot be considered a homicide victim if terminated. Saying that it's okay to terminate it if the mother wants to be rid of it, but it's murder if she wants to keep it is absolutely ludicrous, and completely inconsistent.

I'm sure that they would have ruled that abortions were illegal as well, but state law can't supercede federal law, hence the decision.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What DOES need to happen here is consistency.

We're on opposite sides of the abortion debate but we seem to be in complete agreement on the consistency point. It's why I've said fetal homicide laws (or fetuscide as I believe I've seen them called in some states) should be stricken from the books.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of Utah's law, but:

"...the Utah Supreme Court ruling means that she can be held legally liable for the unintentional death of an infant..."

I think the argument in charging her is that by wilfully ignoring her doctor's advice, she "intentionally" caused the death. Again, I'm not saying that's a good way to look at this particular situation, but I don't think you can simply say it was unintentional as if that is a conclusive statement, either.

[Taur]

It sounds like this law breaks it down to who the defendent is.

If the defendant is a doctor than the victim is a fetus. legal
If the defendant is not a doctor than the victim is a baby. illegal

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's from an article about a Utah woman who's being charged with murder for failing to heed her doctor's advice. Apparently she was carrying twins, the doctor recommended a Caesarean section, the woman sought a couple other opinions, and one of the twins was stillborn. So she's being charged with homicide.

Hm... what would the reaction be if it was a 3-year old? Say, the doctor told the woman that her son/daughter would probably die if he didn't get to the hospital; but she didn't bring the child for some specific reason having nothing to do with the child itself. (Not sure of a good equivalent for the reason - from what I glean from http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html, her biggest reason for not getting a C-section was that she didn't want the scar)

I would think negligent homicide would be justified here. I'm also against abortion, so that probably colors to some extent.

[Mustang]

Man....

I'd be more worried about finding the guy that actually fucked her in the first place. Thats the real crime...

Yeeesh... she makes that million dollar bill lady look like a hottie...

[wishbone]

I guess if the doctors had disagreed or if her 3 visits in a week didn't show an obvious problem, I could defend her actions. But when she ignored their advice, she became responsible. (assuming that's possible, that she's not handicapped in some way) I'm against abortion (in general) but I'm more against stupid, ignorant and dangerous parenting.

[sabotai]

After reading more on the case, I can now kind of understand the argument. She apparently did seek other opinions and the all said the same thing (it died before she saw the third one.)

The last thing that woman should worry about is a scar....damn. That guy must have been real desperate or really drunk....probably both...and hopefully blind...

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What DOES need to happen here is consistency. Either the fetus enjoys all the legal protections of humans, and artificial termination thereof under ANY circumstances is murder, or that fetus is not human, and as such cannot be considered a homicide victim if terminated. Saying that it's okay to terminate it if the mother wants to be rid of it, but it's murder if she wants to keep it is absolutely ludicrous, and completely inconsistent.

What if a pregnant woman got shot and she lived but the baby died. Should the offender only get attempted murder charges when the baby was killed?

I believe Utah's ruling was put into place for this instance too.

[The Afoci]

Ummm... Some other things. The surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in its system. She was also smoking an hour or so before giving birth. Those are the cornerstones of the states case, not that she went to get a second and third opinion.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

What if a pregnant woman got shot and she lived but the baby died. Should the offender only get attempted murder charges when the baby was killed?

I believe Utah's ruling was put into place for this instance too.

It's still inconsistent, and that's what infuriates me more than anything else. From a logical standpoint it makes absolutely no sense for it to be considered murder if the mother wants the child, but just removing an inconvenience if she doesn't.

My point is simply that there needs to be a consistent standard in place.

Was this lady messed up in the head? Yeah, I'm in agreement that the scar should have been the least of her worries. If you're going to set the precedent, however, of hold the mother accountable for murder charges if the fetus dies, then there needs to be that consistency across the entire range of possible outcomes. She's being charged with murder here, whereas if she had said to the doctor instead "No, I don't want a scar from a C-section, please give me an abortion," while that would still have been a screwed up choice to make, under the law, it would have been legal.

Do you see just how ludicrous that is? I'd prefer if abortion were legal only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, I'll make no bones about that, but that isn't even the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is that the law is inconsistent. If the law is changed to make any termination of a fetus illegal when the mother's life isn't in danger, fine. If the law is rewritten so that the fetus isn't treated as a murder victim when it's politically expedient to do so, whatever.

I just want to see some consistency on the issue, whether I agree with that consistency or not.

[The Afoci]

The consistency is abortions aren't allowed days before someone is due to give birth. This lady was overly reckless in the way she treated her body and a fetus died because of her recklessness.

If someone performs an abortion this close to the due date and it is discovered, there would be charges brought up.

[KevinNU7]

Excellent point The Afoci

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

What if a pregnant woman got shot and she lived but the baby died. Should the offender only get attempted murder charges when the baby was killed?

I would be comfortable with that (well, there should clearly be some assault charges and other various things there too). How about if you had a fender bender with a pregnant woman and complications arose and the baby is stillborn? Should you be charged with manslaughter? That seems more bizarre to me than your case...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

The consistency is abortions aren't allowed days before someone is due to give birth. This lady was overly reckless in the way she treated her body and a fetus died because of her recklessness.

If someone performs an abortion this close to the due date and it is discovered, there would be charges brought up.

There's a major logical inconsistency in much of the discussion here. The assumption is that she did something reckless or did something to cause this. She didn't. It's precisely that she DIDN'T do something (getting a c-section) that has charges brought up against her.

This is a huge legal fuck-up. If she doesn't undergo surgery to save the life of another, she's committed murder. What's next? If I'm a marrow match for a cancer patient and refuse to undergo bone-marrow extraction, I'm guilty of murder when the cancer patient dies? There is NO distinction between the two if the fetus is considered to be a living human. So now, according to that DA, we now should all be legally forced to save another's life, even if it means possible injury or death to ourselves (surgery is always a risk).

[The Afoci]

I doubt charges would have been brought up if the lady didn't mention she worried about a scar, the baby wasn't born with cocanie and alcohol in it system and that she was smoking about an hour before giving birth. For not trying, this lady did a hell of a job killing one kid and wounding the hell out of the other.

[iceberg414]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

There's a major logical inconsistency in much of the discussion here. The assumption is that she did something reckless or did something to cause this. She didn't. It's precisely that she DIDN'T do something (getting a c-section) that has charges brought up against her.

This is a huge legal fuck-up. If she doesn't undergo surgery to save the life of another, she's committed murder. What's next? If I'm a marrow match for a cancer patient and refuse to undergo bone-marrow extraction, I'm guilty of murder when the cancer patient dies? There is NO distinction between the two if the fetus is considered to be a living human. So now, according to that DA, we now should all be legally forced to save another's life, even if it means possible injury or death to ourselves (surgery is always a risk).

She did do something reckless - From The Afoci - Ummm... Some other things. The surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in its system. She was also smoking an hour or so before giving birth. Those are the cornerstones of the states case, not that she went to get a second and third opinion.