Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

[Medusa]

I'm very torn as to how I actually side on this one. So here is the scoop:
Mother gives birth to stillborn. It was said to be due to umbilical cord tangled around fetus neck. They also then found traces of cocaine in her system. And now have stated the fetus death was a homicide caused by cocaine toxicity.


I realize there are numerous sides to this subject.
I personally feel a woman has a right to keep a pregnancy or abort one based on exactly any reason SHE decides to pick. Because she's fat. Won't be able to go disco dancing. Because she has no money.Because she hates the father, doesn't know the father. Because she made a mistake etc etc. The reason doesn't actually matter. It's her choice. Not mine.

So then. A person who kills a pregnant woman and is charged with double murder. I get that too. Because the mother didn't choose to end her fetus life. Check.

But stillborn is not her fault. But what if it is due to drugs? Do we then ask her reasoning behind the death? If it's conscious, and she wanted to kill her fetus, can we bust her for it? Is it more a legal thing? She should do so legally? Even though more and more those states (and you know who you are) are making it harder and harder to do so legally. If she did it on accident. She's just, I dunno, a drug addict who got knocked up. Then what do you do? Bust her for doing something illegal (drugs) yet ending her pregnancy is still her, all be it, drugged up choice.

I'm torn. I realize it's easier to be supportive a woman who is a good woman and makes a mistake and makes a conscious decision to rectify it for the better of herself and or family. It's easy to get behind her.

But a drugged up dumb ass woman? I have to say it's still her choice. But I say so with grudging resentment and venom. But I can't pick and choose the law based on MY thought process.


I rambled. But the point is. What do you do with a woman like this?

sauce

[Denarius]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

The purpose of law should be to maintain order and protect our rights, not enforce morality.

Taking illegal drugs is already illegal. Whether cocaine and the use thereof is damaging to society is a debate for another day.

Fetal endangerment laws are iffy. I can see how they could be appropriate, but I can also see the dangerous precedent they could set. That being said, the word of law (in the us) does not prohibit any sort of drug use during pregnancy on the basis of fetal harm. In any state.

You also have the rights of the mother to consider. Which would also lead into the discussion over whether fetuses deserve rights.

My opinion: Slap her on the wrist with a drug charge, if you feel strongly that she should be punished more then get in contact with your representative and try to change the law.

Personally, I think the only real solution to the problem lies in better education and healthcare not stronger laws.

[Ektor]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

I don't see any possible causal link between drug use and umbilical cord tangle. Is such a thing even possible?
Pregnant drug use is highly damaging to babies, so it's a really poor decision to not abort if you can but still take drugs, still, I believe a unborn baby is completely "jurisdiction" of his mother, if she wants it do die, so be it, there's literally no other thing on Earth that can know better if a life is to be had than the creator of that life. So nah, that question doesn't make sense to me.

[Medusa]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

I don't see any possible causal link between drug use and umbilical cord tangle. Is such a thing even possible?
Pregnant drug use is highly damaging to babies, so it's a really poor decision to not abort if you can but still take drugs, still, I believe a unborn baby is completely "jurisdiction" of his mother, if she wants it do die, so be it, there's literally no other thing on Earth that can know better if a life is to be had than the creator of that life. So nah, that question doesn't make sense to me.

There is no casual link. I think they said the stillbirth is usually due to umbilical cord entanglement. No real known reason for the stillbirth. But then also noticed high levels of cocaine. So it could be natural stillbirth reasons. Or it could be cocaine use. Don't know. So it's hard to see if she put her wanted baby in danger or it was just a natural accident not caused in any way by her drug use. So it's iffy.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

The problem that I see with this charge is a) the use of the word 'murder' when it's actually 'manslaughter' unless it was intentional. And b) that it was still a foetus when the alleged cocaine harm happened. If we start prosecuting women for doing drugs and harming their unborn children then we are paving the way for abortion to become illegal. Because once you call it 'murder' or even 'manslaughter' you have to legally define the foetus as a person. And once the foetus is defined as a person then at what point is it taken out of the mother's hands whether or not abortion is okay? This isn't an abortion debate, and I don't think that it should be. But anytime you are talking about unborn babies you inevitably end up there.

And endangering a foetus is not just about illegal substances. Smoking. Alcohol. Bad nutrition. Falling down the stairs. Passive Smoking. Getting in a car accident. Riding a horse. This is one of those situations that ends with the 'where does it end' rhetoric. If you can be charged for murdering an unborn baby because you took cocaine then can you be charged for murdering one because you ate McDonalds your whole pregnancy and didn't get enough vitamins and minerals? Do we consider the baby a 'person' at a certain age and a non-person-it's-okay-to-intentionally-harm before that age? Who picks that age. Third trimester? First trimester? Conception? Where does it end?

- - - Updated - - -

And really... is intentionally doing drugs to kill your baby actually a thing? I mean that seriously. Is that actually done? If so then how do you differentiate between 'murder', 'addicted' and 'just plain stupid'.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

And really... is intentionally doing drugs to kill your baby actually a thing? I mean that seriously. Is that actually done? If so then how do you differentiate between 'murder', 'addicted' and 'just plain stupid'.

It's been done yes. Hormones make some women legitimately insane, even before the baby is born. Women have thrown themselves down stairs, out of cars, taken drugs and poisons. It happens...probably every day. It just usually fails, since tiny humans-to-be are surprisingly resilient.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

For me I would say it's a tragedy. But not a crime.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

If we start prosecuting women for doing drugs and harming their unborn children then we are paving the way for abortion to become illegal. Because once you call it 'murder' or even 'manslaughter' you have to legally define the foetus as a person. And once the foetus is defined as a person then at what point is it taken out of the mother's hands whether or not abortion is okay? This isn't an abortion debate, and I don't think that it should be. But anytime you are talking about unborn babies you inevitably end up there.

In the U.S., we already have laws granting person-hood to a fetus, under certain conditions (Unborn Victims of Violence Act). So far, they have not been used in anti-abortion legislation. The conditions allowing abortion at the choice of the mother is written directly into the law.

Your slippery slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

I'm not sure why this becomes an anti-abortion thing. The result of such a law must be hitting people in the head - if you use drugs and become pregnant, get an abortion, or be charged with a crime. These laws are not merely pro-choice, they are actually pro-abortion.

Should she be charged? I dunno. But I hate to see people arguing irrelevant points.

[Denarius]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

The reason why that law hasn't been used in that fashion, is that it is written into the law that it can't be. Unless you didn't actually read what you just posted.

Precedent is everything when it comes to law. That is why broadly written laws are extremely bad.

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy because it assumes a specific progression without a logical basis for that progression. As in if we allow same sex marriage then it will lead to bestiality and incest being allowed as well. The idea of unintended consequences is not a fallacy.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

The reason why that law hasn't been used in that fashion, is that it is written into the law that it can't be. Unless you didn't actually read what you just posted.

Golly gee whiz, Denarius, not only did I read what I posted, I posted it to demonstrate that very thing, as clearly stated in the third sentence of my post. But you already know that, because you read what I posted...

Yeah - you write exclusions into the law. That's how a slippery slope (technically, the fallacy of the excluded middle, although I just like to refer to it as "black or white thinking") is avoided.


P.S. The fallacy of the slippery slope (fallacy of the excluded middle, false dilemma, etc. is a fallacy because only a LIMITED number of options (commonly just two) are offered, not for the reason you've stated.

[Denarius]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

Well, egg on my face then.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

In the U.S., we already have laws granting person-hood to a fetus, under certain conditions (Unborn Victims of Violence Act). So far, they have not been used in anti-abortion legislation. The conditions allowing abortion at the choice of the mother is written directly into the law.

Your slippery slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act





I'm not sure why this becomes an anti-abortion thing. The result of such a law must be hitting people in the head - if you use drugs and become pregnant, get an abortion, or be charged with a crime. These laws are not merely pro-choice, they are actually pro-abortion.

Should she be charged? I dunno. But I hate to see people arguing irrelevant points.

I wasn't aware of this law so I stand corrected. I also fully admit to using the slippery slope fallacy with the assumption that many US states are practically looking for an excuse to legalise abortion, which is probably an unfair assumption that I shouldn't have made.

In general though, I'm actually a fan of the slippery slope argument, fallacy or not. But that's because I'm a cynical bitch who doesn't trust humanity as a whole to make rational decisions. Or decisions that I consider rational, at least.

And I actually do believe that positing potential progressions are relevent to a debate, right up until someone makes valid rebuttal that indicates the flaw in the original statement. You aren't arguing an irrelevant point until you respond to rebuttal... prior to that you are just bringing it up. So consider this a non-argumented point.

[I'm on my phone today so please forgive any typos, clunky syntax or glossed over points. I try but this thing is positively maddening to post with.)

[anubisa]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

I'm torn in half on this one as well. I think that it is illegal to take drugs while you are pregnant like cocaine and such and you shouldn't be a mother or have children if you are going to take illegal drugs. However, you can't help if a baby is born stillborn. It's not like a mother does it on purpose. So this tears me in two.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

And I actually do believe that positing potential progressions are relevent to a debate, right up until someone makes valid rebuttal that indicates the flaw in the original statement. You aren't arguing an irrelevant point until you respond to rebuttal... prior to that you are just bringing it up. So consider this a non-argumented point.

Sorry - I've been through the hysterical pro-choice media hyperbole "Oh my God, those evil anti-choice people are trying to take our rights away again" so many times that I no longer have much patience for it...

[ChainLightning]

Re: Give birth to stillborn, get tried for murder

Sorry - I've been through the hysterical pro-choice media hyperbole "Oh my God, those evil anti-choice people are trying to take our rights away again" so many times that I no longer have much patience for it...

Add to the fray, the number of debates JUST on this forum, where abortions have led many a thread off into no-man's land, repeatedly....





But still, setting the word of the law aside, I agree with Rae'ya that, indeed, because we're talking about a woman, who gives birth to a stillborn, and is found to have cocaine in her blood stream, the topic of abortion *will* come up. It's inevitable. Slippery slope or not, that fact will lead to, at the very least, someone *thinking* about posting their anti-abortion stance.

Anything, whatsoever, to do with murder, abortion, freedom of choice, etc., ad nauseum is ALL irrelevant to the tragedy of a stillborn.





However, YMMV.