Options
pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges
phobicsquirrel
Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
Wondering myself at how low people can get, especially with how the GOP especially has been on a hunt to destroy woman's rights when it comes to their own bodies, now it seems it is getting much worse.
I find it absolutely astounding at how as a party the GOP seem to be so against government intrusion into private life, however they love to use the govt to take away reproductive rights from woman, among other things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
I find it absolutely astounding at how as a party the GOP seem to be so against government intrusion into private life, however they love to use the govt to take away reproductive rights from woman, among other things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
0
Comments
From what I gather of the article, she wasn't trying to abort it - she never said she wanted to, and she actually tried to carry it to term, but she unintentionally killed it by doing coke while pregnant. This article has nothing to do with abortion. What's the difference if she killed it in the womb by coke vs having the baby and killing it with coke after the birth? It's still a murder
Depraved heart is the same as reckless disregard - it means the person didn't intend the murder, but their actions were so wildly outrageous, that they should've easily foreseen the consequences. The law here isn't being stretch at all; it's the UK Guardian and abortion groups who are straining credibility
I have no tolerance for people that harm children, born or unborn, regardless of what week of pregnancy they may be in. she needs to go to jail.
I find it funny that it's a war atrocity to have an enemy stab the belly of a pregnant woman to kill a child but it's legal to do it surgically and not only legal, but a right they have to their body. Screw that, stupid selfish people.
No evidence of any abortion issue and yet ultra-feminists are saying that MS and AL are attacking constitutional rights?
but seriously, im not sure how prosecuting a woman who ODed on cocaine and ended up killer her fetus that would have been viable on its own is violating her rights. i am also not sure what this has to do with abortion.
pheebs, i am a pro-choice person, but i cant see the leap you have going on here. seriously, this just looks like a non-sequitor excuse to showcase blind hatred towards a group of people that you do not agree with.
sorry man, this is just a bit too much.
the cases outlined here all seemed to have wanted to carry to term, but they insisted on using an illegal and dangerous substance or partake in dangerous/harmful activity. this substance abuse/action was not just effecting her but was effecting her child as well.
heck, im all for legalizing drugs (all drugs not just weed), AND im pro choice, and i think the action of those women is wrong and should be prosecuted.
the woman on cocaine is forcing her kid to have an addiction before the child is born, and that is the best case. in this case (the worst one) that drug killed the kid.
if you feel that this is an ok practice, and is not violating the rights of the child, then there is seriously something wrong with you.
seriously man, what is wrong with you ?
I agree its not an abortion issue per se here, however this always gets me to a paradox in the pro-life/conservative movement..,...You want less govt, less spending, less "bums on welfare"----but you dont want uneducated, poor, addicted, "loser" mothers to be able to abort the fetuses that are going to start the next generation of what youre complaining about. What gives?
Western, I understand your statement, but I consider "paying for it in the afterlife" about as realistic as a Harry Potter movie---and I dont think afterlife and real world monetary cost need to be in the same sentence. So again, wouldnt it be better to have the fetus gone, then to have to pay for it when it becomes a "hatched fetus". I know I sound like an @$$ here, but Im tired of hearing people not want abortion, but then wonder why they also have generations of welfare families. Maybe we should be encouraging more abortion?
If I make a choice to do something that injures another, I am held responsible. The sad fact of pregnancy is that the mother's choices do just that - they affect the baby! If she makes a choice concerning herself that damages the baby then she should be held responsible.
No, that's not fair. ...but what are you going to do about it? Get over it or find another way to have babies. A mother's personal decisions are directly linked to the well being of the baby so, for 9 months, her personal freedoms are restricted on account of her pregnancy.
Rape is about the only way to unwillingly conceive a baby. If a woman makes a bad decision and conceives, the limitation of what would otherwise have been her personal freedom is a consequence she brought on herself. (Not that there wasn't two people involved, the dude in the equation shares equal blame, what's not fair about it is that the woman shares half the blame and 100% of the consequence in terms of personal freedom.)
Fair or not, deal with it. Life aint fair.
JDE
JDE
JDE
But I was thinking on my last post, if we did that, then we might not have very many americans here in the next little while, because alot of people these days are just stupid.
just saying.
Have you thought of this from the other end? Maybe if we end welfare the problem will cure itself. No one enjoys suffering, and people will do what is necasary to stop suffering. By enabling people to maintain a level of comfort while they're at their lowest you kinda take away their incentive to bring thereselves up.
Not sure why your saying they can't be aborted no where in any of my posts did I say abortion should be illegal. I will say tax payers should in no way every pay for it.
JDE
I get the point you were making, but there are kids starving in Africa AND in N. America right now as we discuss this.
Is there ANY place or time in history where you can show that charity in the manner you described has worked? Seriously. I can't think of ANY, but I may be wrong so please if anyone knows of such an place and period of time please enlighten us.
I should add here that I agree 100% with your last statement. Tax payers never got her pregnant, they shouldn't be on the hook for the cost of an abortion either. If charity were to pay for an abortion, would that save taxpayers untold amounts in the future? Not saying I advocate this, but it is something to consider. There's charity and then there is charity. Or maybe this is a case where charity really should begin at home, for the benefit of all later on?
That said, there are more than 500 charities in the US, with untold trillions running through them (handy url: http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html).
I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of Gov't agencies that can be shut down, and simply allow the charities to take over; taxpayer dollars can be spent on better things that doing something that's already being done.