Pro Choice?????

[Veiled Princess 1]

ETA: someone should do to her what she did to her baby

Her mom might have an issue with that. Not only would I imagine it to be quite discomforting to squeeze a fully grown woman back into her mother's womb. But you wouldn't stop there. Adding insult to injury, you'd then have her mother shoot herself in her stomach. You're sick!

I meant she should be shot.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I meant she should be shot.

Hopefully, you meant "using crossbow with a RUSTY quarrel".

[Veiled Princess 1]

I meant she should be shot.

Hopefully, you meant "using crossbow with a RUSTY quarrel".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you happen to be dyslexic as well? It seems more like you were flaming C&M's post than the other way round!

If you like chum

Hopefully, you meant "using crossbow with a RUSTY quarrel".

I guess its no coincidence that those who openly and publicly quote scripture advocate (even in jest) the most unchristian sentiments.

[mybackpages 0]

Do you happen to be dyslexic as well? It seems more like you were flaming C&M's post than the other way round!

If you like chum

Hopefully, you meant "using crossbow with a RUSTY quarrel".

I guess its no coincidence that those who openly and publicly quote scripture advocate (even in jest) the most unchristian sentiments.

why oh why are thoughts of the spanish inquisition dancing in my head?

[almaty 19]

Do you happen to be dyslexic as well? It seems more like you were flaming C&M's post than the other way round!

If you like chum

Hopefully, you meant "using crossbow with a RUSTY quarrel".

I guess its no coincidence that those who openly and publicly quote scripture advocate (even in jest) the most unchristian sentiments.

why oh why are thoughts of the spanish inquisition dancing in my head?

good point

[rclouse 0]

why oh why are thoughts of the spanish inquisition dancing in my head?

good point

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

[Miranda&James 8]

Right, I only just saw this thread now and I'm going to freely admit I'm not going to read 21 pages to see if what I'm saying has been said before, because it doesn't matter since I want to say what I'm going to say as my opinion and I'm happy if other people agree. What this woman did was WRONG WRONG WRONG. I cannot see any argument against that. Murdering (notice I say murder, not kill) another person is wrong. This child only had a couple inches of skin between itself and the outside world and was not specified to have any sort of defect that would prevent it from being a fully functioning human in the outside world (personally I think all babies are human from conception but that isn't relevant since the law doesn't recognize it) and the woman had a choice to leave the baby in a hospital or give it up for adoption. I think almost all would agree that leaving your child in a hospital or designated safe place women are allowed to leave babies is a MUCH better choice than shooting yourself in the stomach to kill the baby. You can't say leaving her baby would be too emotionally hard since she gave birth since she obviously felt no love for a child she was willing to shoot in the stomach. Say what you will, shooting your child doesn't equal love, it's sick and twisted. And with regards to the law, ANY means ANY, period. None of this twisting stuff around #######, there are no specifiers put on that say any one besides the mother, it simply says any. So, she should be prosecuted and in the future if they want mothers exempt then they change the law to say anyone except the mother.

I just wanted to say my opinion, I rarely do on VJ because I hate getting involved in flame wars, they are usually pointless because no one changes their mind, but I feel too strongly to not say anything. I feel fairly certain someone will greatly dislike what I've said and most likely I won't respond because my views on this are set as I'm sure others are as well and I don't like to argue with people I don't know!

[garya505 2]

Refuse to choose.

Women deserve better.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would claim that this shooting is anything approaching a desirable outcome.

As someone mentioned previously, its sad that this "ususual" case has been used to generate 20 pages of political debate about abortion (which makes me wonder if that was the main reason it was posted). This is a unique case, the circumstances of which should surely be dealt with on the specific (and unique) merits. After all, outside of this one article - what do people actually know about this story?

Throwing this case in the face of "pro-choice" advocates seems a little strange to me, but perhaps not unpredictable. It does make you wonder if strict anti-abortionists really think that people who are for choice jump up and down with joy each time an abortion takes place. Crazy.

Going strictly by the article - there are some interesting considerations:

Martingayle does not see his client's case as an open question.

Moreover, he says, there is a dangerous public interest problem that comes with holding a woman legally responsible for her prenatal conduct.

Extending the illegal abortion law to include expectant mothers would open up many more questions and suspicions than the court could — or perhaps should — consider, he argues.

"What if she falls under the stairs under suspicious circumstances?" Martingayle asked. "What if she gains weight? Or not enough weight? What if she didn't follow the right diet or her doctor's recommendations? Was she trying to kill the baby?"

"It turns every expectant mother into a potential criminal," Martingayle said. "If they can convince a jury that she did it on purpose, than the expectant mother becomes a target."

Without question, Martingayle says, the allegations against his client are both serious and tragic.

But if the law changed to include expectant mothers, that would be something that should happen in the state legislature, not in the courthouse, he said.

Questions of prenatal culpability, Martingayle said, would "need to go through the legislative process, where words get carefully chosen."

"Bad facts cannot be allowed to make bad laws," he said.

While this is slightly different - in the UK, a number of women who's kids died "cot death" were convicted and subsequently acquitted of killing them via Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy based on non-specific evidence of fault.

Edited October 25, 2006 by erekose

[Veiled Princess 1]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Great point!

[Jenn! 918]

As someone mentioned previously, its sad that this "ususual" case has been used to generate 20 pages of political debate about abortion (which makes me wonder if that was the main reason it was posted).

I think that should be obvious from the topic title.

[mawilson 2,133]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't though.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't though.

you could always try to be born again. i wanted to be but my mom said NO!