Anti-woman laws in America

As others have said, manslaughter is a more fitting charge than murder, since killing the fetus was more so the side-effect than the main goal.

Prosecuting other people in someone's life for the crimes someone committed opens up a whole new can of worms. Do we prosecute the parents of criminals for failing to raise them not to be criminals? For all we know, the cause and effect may be the other way around; he may have broken up with her because of the way she was.

edited 26th Apr '12 2:06:19 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Remember-common law is based on foreseeability. It is foreseeable that if you're pregnant, crack might hurt your baby.

I don't agree with this ruling in the slightest, but let's try and be intellectually consistent at least.

And these Murder-By-Stillbirth -laws are different from the dreaded sharia law... how exactly?

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Sharia isn't about protecting fetuses so much as forcing Islamic standards on everyone. At least Republicans aren't making it a crime punishable by being repeatedly whipped to dress revealingly or be in a car with a man who isn't her husband.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Give them a couple of weeks.

I mean, it's hard to argue that many of the current anti-woman laws aren't about forcing (regressive, fundamentalist) Christian standards on everyone - the analogy is closer than you might like to admit.

What's precedent ever done for us?

Historically speaking, nobody could be prosecuted for such things, since the law didn't consider a fetus as a person and thus murderable.

As a practical matter, I'm not sure what's gained for the state or the people by making this illegal and prosecuting these women.

Also, what's especially concerning is that these cases appear to be prosecutors making the assumption that a crime had taken place and then digging for a reason, and apparently not requiring actual proof that the reason they brought forth was the actual cause of fetal death in the first place!

The law in question seems to basically read that if a fetus died and the prosecution can uncover any illegal drug use by the mother, they're not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was actually the cause of the death at all. E.g. in the case of the woman who tried to commit suicide, they're overlooking the most likely reason of miscarriage (the poison she took in her suicide attempt) in favor of an unlikely reason (possible illegal drug use earlier) entirely because they wouldn't get a conviction for the real cause.

A brighter future for a darker age.

You don't get stoned, even if you were on crack?

And, guys: rat poison usually acts as an anticoagulant. That is why I'd put more money on that having started the still birth rather than the actual coke. Also because the active compounds of rat poisons are ones that can easily cross the placental barrier. Particularly with second gen poisons.

Even with vit K being taken, it might not have been fast enough for the baby. Even had the baby survived, their vascular system would've been shot to hell.

Them citing the coke? Is basically playing to the anti-drug crowd.

edited 26th Apr '12 2:19:15 PM by Euodiachloris

Well, if a fetus is a person, then attempted suicide is basically an attempted murder, so they have clear intent.

Clearly, the proper punishment for someone that attempts suicide while pregnant is the death penalty.

I'm being morbid here-don't take this too seriously.

Assuming the fetus were murderable, a pregnant woman trying to end her own life and ended up killing the fetus would have committed 2nd degree murder.

One definition of 2nd degree murder is a "knowing killing" as opposed to 1st's "intentional killing." That is, you knew it would happen but that was not the result you were going for when you committed the action. Say I decide to blow up a car you're in. When that kills your driver too, I "knew" your driver would die, but I only "intended" for you to die.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

And, if we're going with foresight: the baby daddy should have had the foresight to expect his ex to go a bit nuts if he left her in the lurch, as, presumably, he knew just how unstable she probably was. Even before he ditched her. Yet, do I see him being charged in anything to do with the death of the foetus; why, no: I don't.

Message is: if you leave your crazy bitch and she sorts the problem out by trying to kill herself — you win! What a comfort to all skipping dads, eh?

edited 26th Apr '12 2:36:53 PM by Euodiachloris

Hell, if she gets life and the kid goes into a foster home, you don't even have to pay child support!

Excuse me while I vomit a little in my throat now. I'm wondering if these misogynists would be willing to charge a newborn with murder if it was born prematurely and the mother died.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Foreseeability is a legal term. It does not mean "people should magically be able to determine the future." It should mean "this is something reasonably expected."

And that's what I'm saying: the crack use kind of suggests a far from stable personality who more than likely needed support through pregnancy. Ergo: leaving her during it would most likely lead to a crisis. Even if he couldn't predict exactly what she would do, he should have known her well enough to know he'd be pushing her into a very bad place. Also, stress is not good for foetuses.

It could well have contributed to the poor thing not being able to survive what Mum did: stress can have physiological effects on the heart in foetal development.

edited 26th Apr '12 2:52:08 PM by Euodiachloris

I suppose you could argue he had a good Samaritan obligation to report her to the authorities.

Or finding another means of pointing help in her direction, yes.

Good samaritan laws (the kind that require a certain sort of action, rather than permit a certain kind of action) generally haven't made it into the common law for some reason. My guess is that there's too much uncertainty (information costs) involved in that sort of thing, so it's impractical to enforce.

Indeed. Which is why the focus of this debate should be on why fetuses should not be considered persons under the law, (at least in the first two trimesters; 8 months along is somewhat of a grey area) rather than hiding behind cheap copouts like "but it's in her body."

Hmm? I thought the point of the distinction between murder and manslaughter is that in the former, killing is the goal, and in the latter it's a consequence of something else. (Drunk driving, etc...)

From my understanding of it, the distinction between 1st degree and 2nd degree is in how calculated the murder was; 2nd degree was committed in the heat of the moment, often without thinking it through, whereas 1st degree involved thinking it through and making a clear decision to commit it.

It's considered immoral to associate with immoral people. To prosecute him for not continuing doing so would be creating a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Uh? So, doing a few drugs (for all we know, partly down to the company she kept: including his) and getting depressed marks you as an amoral person nobody should touch with a barge pole? No wonder she reached for the poison...

"Guilt by association?" I've never heard it used as a precedent.

I did say "for all we know". Statistics are not on his side, though. Under-aged kids who get their hands on drugs usually get them from those they conciser their nearest friends first, before they learn the culture. <shrugs>

However, I don't know that for sure. Just saying it's statistically likely he shares a similar background.

What are you talking about?

@Matt I said one definition of 2nd degree murder was a knowing killing. Often, an unjustified and unpremeditated killing in the heat of the moment also counts as 2nd degree.

In Tennessee at least, involuntary manslaughter is essentially "reckless" homicide - that is, you certainly didn't mean to kill anyone, but you were doing something stupid (like playing with your gun when it went off).

Voluntary manslaughter is essentially an "understandable" rage killing. If you're exposed to something that would cause a reasonable person to act unreasonably (walking in on your wife having an affair) and you pull out your gun and open fire, this is voluntary manslaughter. (OTOH if you walk back to the other room, get your gun, load it, and walk back and fire, it's 1st degree).

Also, many people probably don't consider "but it's in her body," a cheap cop-out. Many people actually think a woman does have control over her body in much the same way a man does his, and think that that's the central issue. You may disagree, but it is hardly a cop-out.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Sorry: tired. Must've misunderstood you. I should wend my way to Bedfordshire.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:34:15 PM by Euodiachloris

I'm pretty sure if this goes on, it will make every woman who has ever had unprotected sex a criminal.

Unprotected? Hah, I think these people would be more about banning sex with protection. If you ain't makin' babies, what are you doing?

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.