Pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges in USA

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
21
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just because someone was raped (or any other sort of wronged) does that mean they should not be tried the same as anyone else for murder (assuming they are not deemed mentally insane, of course). Raped women can get abortions, no one is arguing that. The problem is that overdosing on cocaine while you are pregnant is not the responsible way to do that and should be illegal.

You could never prove that unless you forcibly check the woman out.

Men who care about women getting abortions baffle me.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
21
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I can never understand the opposition to abortion. Don't we want LESS people? I mean goodness.

On top of that, trying to control women's bodies is creepy and no argument will ever convince me it's okay.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
You could never prove that unless you forcibly check the woman out.

Men who care about women getting abortions baffle me.


Moi aussi! Srsly, I'm pro-choice because as a man I believe I have no right to decide anything that should happen to a woman's body, and that nothing should happen to women's bodies without their consent. That women bear children does not make their bodies a matter of my personal moral interest nor does public policy have any business in deciding what happens to women's bodies.

Women aren't enslaved by their procreative ability just as men are not.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Just repeal fetal homicide laws. It is that simple.

If someone else can be imprisoned for life for killing a fetus, so should a mother for intentionally harming a fetus - it is a separate individual & doesn't deserve to be abused.

However, as I said, if you get rid of fetal homicide laws, & the problem raised here just goes away.
 

Ellebel

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Groningen, The Netherlands
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
If it's intentional I do agree with imprisonment or some other form of help, but I don't think the article is about that. The article is about harming a fetus as a 'side-effect' of something being used or done without the intention of harming the fetus.
 

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Media
12
Likes
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just repeal fetal homicide laws. It is that simple.

If someone else can be imprisoned for life for killing a fetus, so should a mother for intentionally harming a fetus - it is a separate individual & doesn't deserve to be abused.

However, as I said, if you get rid of fetal homicide laws, & the problem raised here just goes away.


That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.


Why? Often the primary reason foetal homocide laws exist is to restrict or ban abortion. And yet in some instances they exist alongside legal allowances for abortion, sometimes even alongside allowance of elective abortion which in itself makes little or no sense. If abortion is illegal in a given jurisdiction then prosecute someone for performing an illegal abortion and apply the appropriate sentence prescribed by the law. Even though I'm pro-choice myself and would vehemently disagree with such laws, I think if they exist they should be applied properly and additional laws on foetal homocide normally get envoked to exact vengeance rather than justice on those who have obtained or performed illegal abortions.

There are cases in which people kill people's unborn babies, horrific attacks intended to cause the death of a foetus, but I've always thought that those should be prosecuted as attempted murder of the mother since such attacks could easily have caused her death and the attacker clearly cared little enough whether or not she lived or died. Prosecuting these crimes under foetal homocide laws is an attempt to guarantee conviction, essentially an attempt to make the job of the prosecutor easier, regardless of the knock on effects such laws have in situations not initially intended to be covered by them or indeed the contradictions such laws may represent to existing abortion laws.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
If it's intentional I do agree with imprisonment or some other form of help, but I don't think the article is about that. The article is about harming a fetus as a 'side-effect' of something being used or done without the intention of harming the fetus.

I think that taking crack or rat poison does consitute intentional harm.:rolleyes: When you separate a fetus as a legal entity, which is at the point of viability, it has a right to be protected from harm. Anyone continuing with a pregnancy past that point is a guardian of that fetus' safety, & therefore it's treatment is considered the same as if it had already been born, because if it was born at that point - it should survive.

Baby crackheads don't reflect well on anyone. However, in the cases mentioned, it's unlikely that many if any would go to court because there would have to be a clear intent, or wilful neglect proven. Add to this a defence of hormonal/emotional imbalance, & you wouldn't get many successful prosecutions, though ultimately, an adult child could retrospectively claim for damages inflicted to it in the womb, whatever.

People have been imprisoned & sued for fetal homicide without even knowing that the woman was pregnant, so intention has little to do with it.

It's far better to get rid of laws which only serve to complicate matters, & which lead to innocent people becoming accused.
 

Ellebel

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Groningen, The Netherlands
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I think that taking crack or rat poison does consitute intentional harm.:rolleyes: When you separate a fetus as a legal entity, which is at the point of viability, it has a right to be protected from harm.

Perhaps I have a different defenition of 'intent' then:smile: If I would hit a wall with my fist because I'm really really pissed off and broke my finger or something I don't think I would have intended to break my finger. Maybe when I think clearly afterwards I will see it as a very logical result (maybe not, I've never hit walls before and I'm not sure it will break a finger), but it doesn't mean it was my intention to do so. It was my intention to hit the wall really hard:)

And you can perhaps separate a fetus as a legal entity, but you can't seperate the fetus from the mother physically. If a pregnant woman decides to commit suicide the baby will die because the fetus can't survive on it's own. That's pretty bad news for the baby, but it doesn't mean the woman's intention was to kill the baby.
 

B_prettyswinggirl

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Posts
422
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
53
Location
Southern California
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Also consider the women who would rather have natural childbirth at home with a midwife supervising or even just surrounded by family. That could be constituted as putting the fetus in danger because of lack of monitoring equipment. Say that something tragic happens and the baby dies. That mother could be prosecuted under the bill that's trying to be passed in my state and many others at the moment. It's mind boggling what the mostly right wing Republicans are trying to get away with. I rarely get involved in politics, but this is definitely an issue that needs looked at by all of us.

Another example...Say a woman is a little overdue and refuses artificial induction. Since the chances of sudden fetal demise increase after 40 weeks is she to be held accountable too?
 
Last edited:

Ellebel

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Groningen, The Netherlands
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Exactly! And how about overweight? According to the US department of Health and Human Services 64,1% of the American women is overweight, 35,5% is considered obese. The consequences of overweight in pregnancy are higher chances of miscarriage and childbirth, higher bloodpressure and higher chances of congenital disorders to name a few. Do you want to put all these women behind bars too?
 

B_doogie888

1st Like
Joined
May 3, 2007
Posts
272
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If it's intentional I do agree with imprisonment or some other form of help, but I don't think the article is about that. The article is about harming a fetus as a 'side-effect' of something being used or done without the intention of harming the fetus.

A 5 year old boy was hit and killed by a drunk driver, but that's just an unintentional "side-effect" of the driver wanting to have a good time so it's ok!
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
A 5 year old boy was hit and killed by a drunk driver, but that's just an unintentional "side-effect" of the driver wanting to have a good time so it's ok!



Well that's vehicular manslaughter in many jurisdictions, and in some it's a lesser charge even than that. It's certainly not tried as murder in most jurisdictions, even if it is heinous.
 

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Media
12
Likes
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just repeal fetal homicide laws. It is that simple.

If someone else can be imprisoned for life for killing a fetus, so should a mother for intentionally harming a fetus - it is a separate individual & doesn't deserve to be abused.

However, as I said, if you get rid of fetal homicide laws, & the problem raised here just goes away.

Why? Often the primary reason foetal homocide laws exist is to restrict or ban abortion. And yet in some instances they exist alongside legal allowances for abortion, sometimes even alongside allowance of elective abortion which in itself makes little or no sense. If abortion is illegal in a given jurisdiction then prosecute someone for performing an illegal abortion and apply the appropriate sentence prescribed by the law. Even though I'm pro-choice myself and would vehemently disagree with such laws, I think if they exist they should be applied properly and additional laws on foetal homocide normally get envoked to exact vengeance rather than justice on those who have obtained or performed illegal abortions.

There are cases in which people kill people's unborn babies, horrific attacks intended to cause the death of a foetus, but I've always thought that those should be prosecuted as attempted murder of the mother since such attacks could easily have caused her death and the attacker clearly cared little enough whether or not she lived or died. Prosecuting these crimes under foetal homocide laws is an attempt to guarantee conviction, essentially an attempt to make the job of the prosecutor easier, regardless of the knock on effects such laws have in situations not initially intended to be covered by them or indeed the contradictions such laws may represent to existing abortion laws.


Ahh, I see. I was actually unaware of many of those facts. Thanks for the info! :biggrin1: I agree, I'm def a pro choice person myself, but using against women for that purpose in my mind sounds dubious at best, downright morally corrupt at worst. But that is just my opinion. I'm sure others don't think as I do, or atleast not all.