Do pregnant women have a constitutional right to shoot themselves in the belly?
posted at 1:28 pm on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I’m still getting caught up with other news, but here’s some red meat for our new commenters. Quote:
According to Lynn Paltrow, executive director at Advocates for Pregnant Women, the way to prevent cases like Skinner’s is to provide low-income women easier access to abortions and reproductive health resources.
“The question we shouldn’t be asking is, ‘What crime did she commit?’ But, ‘Why didn’t she have access to abortion services? Why didn’t she have access to mental health services?’” Paltrow said.
The case is up on appeal after the lower court dismissed the case against her.
She shot herself on her due date. Virginia’s late-term abortion ban was struck down by the Fourth Circuit last year for failing to allow abortions where giving birth would threaten the mother’s health.
Update: Please note: it is, indisputably, a criminal act for someone else to kill a woman’s fetus by intentionally injuring her. The question for the court here is whether there’s an exception for a mother who injures herself.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
no choices??? I guess giving the child up for adoption would have been waaaaaay too hard…sheesh. unbelievable.
pullingmyhairout on October 19, 2006 at 1:34 PM
A tragedy, to be sure. I wonder how many stories like this we would hear about if abortion were criminalized?
GregH on October 19, 2006 at 1:36 PM
a tragedy for who? I hope you mean the baby. the mother had choices. she chose not to take advantage of them. The baby had no choices.
you need to answer my ecomonics 101 question on the other thread before I get into this with you.
pullingmyhairout on October 19, 2006 at 1:39 PM
This is messed up. The baby was due that very day. At this point, we may as well let mother’s shoot newborns.
And we’re not even talking about whether or not the baby can feel pain at this point, because we know a newborn feels pain, and pain isn’t magically inserted in the baby upon birth.
I can’t believe this woman is getting off.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM
We should probably be happy that this woman made the sensible decision to spare society from the unpredictable consequences of her offspring. After all - do we really want people who shoot themselves in the stomach to pro-create? She did us all a favor, didn’t she?
No tragedy here. Unless you believe that each human life is unique and precious, of course. And that’s just sappy.
Enrique on October 19, 2006 at 1:43 PM
yea, but remember: to a liberal, the unborn baby is still a choice. To them, he child doesn’t become real until after she’s born. If they felt otherwise, abortion would be equally as revolting to them as it is to us.
pullingmyhairout on October 19, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Isn’t there some kind of law against attempted suicide?
jeffshultz on October 19, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Adoption… Adoption… Adoption…
or better yet… CONDOMS, the pill, spermicide, tube tying…
yes… no options.
Am I the only one thinking the wrong person got shot?
E L Frederick on October 19, 2006 at 1:45 PM
In answer to your question-No. It was her due date. Like someone else said, how about adoption. Some states have “baby safe haven” laws that if a parent feels they cannot care for a newborn they can leave the child in the care of a hospital,no questions asked. This is no different if she had given birth and stuffed the baby in a garbage bag and left the child in a dumpster.
vcferlita on October 19, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Disturbing
She will be the NOW/Abortionist hero from here on in regardless of how disturbing this is.
And the prosecutor will be a fanatical misogynist bastard
Defector01 on October 19, 2006 at 1:48 PM
This is a very tragic case. Let’s argue this fact: this mother did not have access to social services. I believe that the system need a counseling service that would have encouraged to have the baby and give up the to child protective services. Disregarding the law, the mother can still use the insanity plea to overcome a conviction. I base my theory from the ABC story. BTW, planned parenthood should be performing this service, rather being naughty.
Ouabam on October 19, 2006 at 1:50 PM
This case helps to clarify the abortion debate. There is no moral difference between a surgical procedure that sucks the baby’s brains out with a vacuum or a gunshot. The end result is still the same: dead baby.
To answer the question you posed Allah; no, a pregnant woman cannot (morally or legally) shoot herself. If she’s not pregnant the answer turns to yes.
People are welcome to take their own lives. That is a decision between them and their Creator. Not the lives of others. That is flatly murder.
And before one of you progs jump in to question my stand on Capitol Punishment, save your breath. I don’t support Capitol Punishment on moral grounds.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 1:51 PM
If its a double homicide when someone kills a pregnant woman, then it should be a double charge of homicide and attempted suicide if a woman shoots herself in this way.
burgers on October 19, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Once again, nothing says wymyn’s emancipation like a dead fetus.
thirteen28 on October 19, 2006 at 1:53 PM
My wife and I adopted our beautiful and intelligent daughter from China eleven years ago. I thank God her biological mother made the right CHOICE.
liberty on October 19, 2006 at 2:03 PM
What’s the tragedy here? The woman didn’t die. She simply murdered her baby the day her baby was to be born.
If you have no problem with abortion, then what’s the tragedy?
And please, cry me a hanger-abortion river. The woman belongs in jail, or at least with Andrea Yate’s fate. This moral relativism on murdering babies is beneath the human conscience.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 2:03 PM
So if she delivered the baby and, while it was still attached to the umbilical cord, shot it..
Would that be murder or an abortion?
Skywise on October 19, 2006 at 2:03 PM
The baby starts breathing before the umbilical is detached.
Therefore murder. In the eyes of the law and hopefully everyone else.
jeffshultz on October 19, 2006 at 2:08 PM
It’s murder of a human being - plain and simple. I agree with E L Fredrick, the wrong person survived this crime.
SCGOPgirl on October 19, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Actually, suicide is illegal, or rather attempted suicide is illegal considering a successful suicide cannot be prosecuted.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 2:10 PM
The story says she has two children. Wonder how many bullets are left in the gun? There’s no mention, and seemingly no concern, in the article about their welfare. With the quasi-pass some women have gotten for killing their children because of their mental illnesses, I can’t understand not charging her for something or else getting her hospitalized/institutionalized so her children aren’t the next such victims. Doesn’t this case make it clear that the woman’s choice is not alway the paramount concern?
shuzilla on October 19, 2006 at 2:10 PM
Isn’t this an “accessory” charge? Who would load a gun for someone in this mental state, without even wondering why? If anything that person should be thrown in the wagon just for being dumb or a knowledgable party to the crime. I am ashamed this happened in my State.
KineticJustice on October 19, 2006 at 2:11 PM
I’d argue that it’s worse since the baby in the dumpster at least has a chance at being seen and rescued.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 2:12 PM
So she says she felt she had no choices, and the defense claims she had no access to social services. Was this due to there being no social service available to her or due to her lack of knowlege or her lack of attempts to get help? Abused and confused is an excuse to get help, not to shoot yourself and your baby.
aelhues on October 19, 2006 at 2:13 PM
Someone should tell her there’s a baby in her head. She might just buy it…
Ugly on October 19, 2006 at 2:13 PM
A few years ago in my 30’s I wrote myself off as never being a parent. Now in my mid 40’s I have a 3 year old girl. Years ago this story would have caused little reaction in my heart. Now a parent, stories like this make me disgusted and sad. This is almost a do it yourself partial birth abortion being the mom was so late in the pregnancy. Could the mom have birthed the child and put it up for adoption and perhaps get some $$$ for the birthing trouble? I don’t mean to sound morbid but the child is better off now by not going thru life with such a screwed up mother that would shoot it in her womb. Yes Defector01, a pro-choice poster mom has been spawned.
BRYHERB on October 19, 2006 at 2:14 PM
To a liberal, what you call a “child” — i.e., a former fetus — remains a choice until it’s enough trimesters old to be able to have an abortion itself.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 19, 2006 at 2:14 PM
E L Frederick on October 19, 2006 at 2:15 PM
The solution to the problem is not to charge the woman with inducing an illegal abortion but to charge her for practicing medicine without a license.
rw on October 19, 2006 at 2:15 PM
Esthier, I was speaking on moral terms. Even still, a successful suicide, as you stated, cannot be prosecuted.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 2:15 PM
I can’t stand the fact that we live in a lawyer’s world where there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Blame your parents, alcohol, society, and the government, but it’s never your fault.
It’s the modern equivelant of “the devil made me do it”…no you made you do it.
StoutRepublican on October 19, 2006 at 2:21 PM
The woman should not jailed for her action because it sets precedent in cases where guns are not involved. What if she was rubbing Dimethyl sulfide on her belly every morning, What if she indulged in malnutrition, etc. It becomes complicated. Another complication: there is constant use of this technique. Uncle Sam should unveil a law that punishes people who use of this techinique frequently becuase the insanity defence cannot be used. There should be a program that encourges women to give birth to the baby in assurance that the baby would be adopted.
Ouabam on October 19, 2006 at 2:21 PM
I’m pro-choice but come on. Shooting a just-about-to-be-born baby is murder.
I just can’t see how ANYBODY can find a defense for this. Why didn’t she shoot herself back in her first trimester? At least then one could make the argument that it was only a clump of cells. Now there is no argument. It’s murder. Plain and simple.
CookeyD on October 19, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Really? Is that standard thought amongst conservatives, or are you making a bold break from party platform here?
GregH on October 19, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Once again our courts astound me. Here’s where I wish there was a emote on this site showing a head banging into a desktop because that’s me right now.
Benaiah on October 19, 2006 at 2:25 PM
As the proud parent of an adopted little boy this makes me sick. Perhaps the troll who will remain nameless but calls himself an “activist” on his site would have liked to have been aborted? Always amazes me that those who do the aborting never stop to think what would happen if they had been aborted themselves. Well just remember this-it’s a child not a choice. You mock us for being Pro-Life can we call you Pro-Death? I think that’s an appropriate term to use with people like yourself. Yes, there are exceptions for the life of the mother but on her due date. I’ve had liberals tell me it was a bad thing for me not to have aborted my “defective” child. Again, they have defective brains but are still wondering around society spewing their intellectualism. I rejoice because at 3 1/2 my daughter is just beginning to walk while my liberal relatives shake their head.
Catie96706 on October 19, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Wow. A mother kills her baby - had the baby been born that morning, the mother would be charged with murder. But, because the infant was still in her womb (but full-term), she gets away with it.
There needs to be a clean sweep of our court systems. This case should be the litmus test - “Would you uphold this judges ruling? You would? GET OUT”…
Timothy S. Carlson on October 19, 2006 at 2:33 PM
I was told that in France (other parts of Europe?) a woman can kill her baby up to two years after birth under the guise of post partum depression without fear of prosecution. Government sanctioned murder of babies is apparently already a reality there.
urbancenturion on October 19, 2006 at 2:35 PM
No, she does not have a constitutional right to shoot herself, much less her unborn child. And as for her claim that she didn’t have access to appropriate services, that’s just plain bogus. Pregnancy counseling services are readily available: schools, public health clinics, women’s centers, etc. This is a case of an individual who is unwilling to accept the consequences of her actions. Paltrow’s argument is also disingenuous as said reproductive health resources and options for dealing with pregnancy are readily available for those who wish to go through the effort of attaining them.
Should she be prosecuted? Yes. Now she is merely trying to dodge having to pay the price for her action. For her, I feel no sympathy–for her unborn child, I feel great sadness and regret as he/she was the one who paid the price for his/her mother’s actions.
Matt Helm on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Yes, Greg, natesnake was speaking directly from the Conservative Handbook, (c)Sep2006, pg 667 (there IS no page 666). Nate, next time please cite your references.
dalewalt on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM
If something had happened during delivery of the baby the mother could have sued the doctors and hospitals.
If the baby had been born and was then killed by somebody that person would be tried for murder.
If someone had attacked the mother before giving birth and something happened to the baby they could be prosecuted under a variety of statues.
But since the mother is the one doing the killing hey no problem?
/hey you kids quit playing tag and get over here for your medication
LakeRuins on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM
True, but only because there is no one to prosecute.
I very respectfully disagree.
1. With murder cases, intent to kill is always taken into consideration.
Did you intend to poison your husband with cyanide, or are you just too stupid to know cyanide kills?
Did you mean to deprive your child of food, or was something else in play?
Did you mean to shoot your baby when you shot your pregnant belly the day your baby was to be born?
We deal with this all the time in criminal courts.
2. Should this assurance of adoption continue to women like Andrea Yates?
Should all murderous mothers be given the option to know they can just dump their
childrenproblems on someone else?Let’s be honest here, the only difference between a newborn and a baby on its due date is the “cage” of a womb that in this case only made it a sitting duck. And for that we want to reward this jackass with a lessor sentence than we would give someone who simply abandons their baby?
And again, I very much respect your opinion but just have too much disrespect for the woman in this story. So far as I’m concerned, jail is too good for her, but something definately needs to be done to ensure her children that made it outside of her dangerous womb are kept safe from her.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 2:37 PM
rw: I like your idea.
Muslihoon on October 19, 2006 at 2:38 PM
I should have my head checked for even responding to you, but I will. Prepare to be amazed.
Not all Republicans or Conservatives walk the party line. I walk the line on most every topic with exception of two. I do not support Capitol Punishment. I do support euthanasia.
It’s a personal stand that is I find consistant across the board. If a person is Pro Life, then that means all life is sacred including the lives of heinous criminals. We each have one life to control; our own. If you decide to end that life, well that’s your personal choice.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 2:42 PM
It’s pretty much BS that their were no social Services. I live in Norfolk VA, and we have plenty of social services. Their are half a dozen hospitals, a hildrens hospital, the Safe Place, several christian chapters, adoption services etc. She had choices. her choice was to get stoned and shoot herslef. At least the local story has her being pretty high at the time.
Morality is not a political party GregH. Liberal, conservative, religeous, athiest etc ALL can have morals. The question here is, is it Ok to kill a child. In this case to kill a child on its birthday. The child had not been born, but does that make it killing it an ethical choice?
I find killing some people in cold blood to be perfectly ethical. But a child? No. The only exception is when the mothers life is in danger. Other then that, if you don’t want a child then utilize your power of choice to keep your pants up, use a condom, or engage in alternate sexual positions that make pregnancy impossible. Unless her boyfreind raped her (he did not) thenshe had plenty of choices, and opted instead to take a risk. The consequences were pregnancy.
Gah, I fed a troll. bad me. BAAAAD ME!
Wyrd on October 19, 2006 at 2:44 PM
You know some extreme liberals will claim it’s not a baby until it leaves the hospital.
ElChupie on October 19, 2006 at 2:45 PM
Handgun = Liberal’s Home Abortion Kit :(
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM
The “complications” cited in the article and above are absurd. If a woman gets depressed and stops eating and the baby dies because the mother is malnourished, it is tragic. But when it comes to crime, intent is always a factor. If a woman takes action with intent to harm her own baby, then it is no different if she uses chemicals or bullets–or even some grotesque inaction. It is a question of intent. This gets litigated in virtually every criminal case that takes place.
urbancenturion on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM
That’s exactly what I was thinking, it’s irrelevant what your position on abortion is, because abortion doesn’t even enter into the equation. The most sickening thing isn’t even that she got off, it was the judge dismissing charges. An insanity plea is one thing, but not even to go to trial???
Since the question was asked, I’ll answer it. She DID have access to both, you can find such services free of charge, if you just seek them out.
This being my first post on Hot Air I was going to make the mistake of addressing GregH’s arguments, but I quickly realized that it wouldn’t even be worth my time.
dementia unbound on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM
“Pro-choice” regarding abortion is the most disingenuous term in the history of mankind.
Life is precious, sanctified, and protected by the Constitution. Anybody who claims to have more than 5 working brain cells and says life begins at birth is a liar, or immensely self-deluded.
The next step of the argument is that “we can’t be certain when life begins”. And that uncertainty justifies murder? The only legally valid response must be “since we are unable to clearly define the moment at which life commences, we cannot be certain when an abortion is or isn’t murder, and therefore it is not a legal act”. Of course, the most precise answer is that life begins at conception, and ALL abortion is murder.
Any taking of a life without due process is a crime.
If I weren’t a Christian I would suggest that I have just as much “right to choose” about the life or death of a pro-baby-murder person as they do about the life or death of that wonderful baby being raised within the womb.
A parent has no right to choose to abuse or intentionally harm their child, physically or emotionally. They have no right to choose that their children not be educated. They have no right to choose that their children not be fed or clothed. They have no right to choose any illegal or immoral action in regards to their children. Yet you approve and agree that they have a right to SNUFF it out before it can become a bother or burden. That is the most cowardly and disgusting philosophy imaginable on the face of the earth.
CookeyD, clump of cells? You really can’t be serious. Try studying genetics a little bit (NOT eugenics!).
Freelancer on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Thanks Dalewalt. I thought I was losing my mind when I couldn’t find page 666. I was hoping that it was a publishing glitch. I need to figure out how to use the index…..
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Yes, let’s have abortion service house calls and list them in the Yellow Pages under “Exterminators”.
CliffHanger on October 19, 2006 at 2:51 PM
GregH, Rather than framing a compelling rebuttal to Nate’s comment, you take the typical Liberal Dim route of insulting his view. You need to stay away from KO’s. They ruin your thought process.
You can’t win an argument against ignorance Nate. Pretty soon, GregH will resort to calling you a homophobe because suicide occurs more frequently per capita in the gay community than in the population at large.
The “Liberal Handbook” page 666 - “When the merits of an argument go against you, start calling them names.”
BacaDog on October 19, 2006 at 2:52 PM
I agree with you because of the above point; but I believe in second chances. I don’t want to be a Nancy Grace on this issue. My argument can be used aon different cases. I favor life imprisonment; but there has to be another way. As for children, we do not know thier status. The psychological impact of not being raised by one’s mother is great.
Ouabam on October 19, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Allowing a judge to define what life is and when life starts creates situations like this.
wrath187 on October 19, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Anyone remember an old SNL skit in ehich some preggers robbed a bank and threatened everyone that “if anyone follows us [they point pistols at bellies] the baby gets it!” Who knew someone would/could consider this as anyting other than a preposterous joke? Sick.
urbancenturion on October 19, 2006 at 2:59 PM
Don’t sweat it. Several of us “regulars” do the same thing. It’s too difficult to not verbally cut stupidity off at the knees
True. But what I can do is call GregH names.
GregH is a douche bag.
Ahhhh, that feels better.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Ouabam, I also believe in second chances. I’m not arguing for life in prison, but I would definately argue for jail time. And I don’t believe that letting her off without consequence is akin to giving her a second chance. In my book, it’s akin to telling her what she did was right and OK.
And as far as her children, I do not believe she should be allowed to even speak to them until it can be proven she poses no threat to their physical well-being. I’m not interested in seperating mothers and children in general, but humans survive psychological issues much easier than physical issues.
I’d err more towards psychological than physical in every case every time.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM
I probably do not have the ‘right’ to express an opinion. I’m a male after all. The question to me always, ALWAYS, boils down to this; ‘Regardless of the status, zygote or fetus, how many would NOT develop into a human being?’. I am neither a right-wing religious fanatic, nor an anti-womens right fanatic. No matter which way I look at it I always come back to that question. To my knowledge NONE would have developed into a giraffe, or a opossum, or a kitten. I just don’t get it.
Limerick on October 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM
If I shoot a girl in the stomach, that is assault.
If I help give a girl a back alley abortion, that is an illegal abortion.
If I shoot a girl in the stomach, and her 3 month old baby miscarries, I can be charged with assault on the girl, and murder for the death of her unborn baby. Because the girl wanted to keep the baby, I am charged with murder.
Yet this woman can shoot herself and kill her unborn baby and it is not murder.
So from what I see, if a woman wants to protect an unborn, killing it is murder.
If she wants to abort it, it is not murder.
That makes no sense to me.
EFG on October 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM
I’m pro-choice as well, but this is ridiculous. Come on. Shooting herself in the stomach? I also say its bull that there are no social services or planned parenthoods around. They appear to popup on every other corner.
Also, I feel bad for the women who have been raped, and pregnancy was the end result. Considering she apparently WASN’T raped, very little sorrow on my end.
americanpundit on October 19, 2006 at 3:04 PM
natesake,
I’ve little interest in attempting to change your mind, but for the sake of others I feel the need to respond to this…
Two problems. First, euthanasia is not suicide, and therefore not “your personal choice”.
euthanasia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
Second, being pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, and pro-suicide is not a consistant position at all. I am as strongly pro-life as it is possible to be, and I agree with you that we each have one life to control. But when we fail to control our own life to the extent that we destroy others, society under the law has a right to end our life. So the “heinous criminals” you mention have forfeited the precious nature of their lives. I defer on the issue of euthanasia, the grey areas there are huge, and every potential issue must be dealt with on its own merits.
But abortion cannot be justified, morally or legally.
Freelancer on October 19, 2006 at 3:05 PM
EFG, that’s because with Roe, we weighed a woman’s choice as worth more than human life. So when something takes away that woman’s choice, it’s worse than taking away a human life.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 3:08 PM
Yeah, I hear you. But that’s crazy logic we’re speakin’…
EFG on October 19, 2006 at 3:12 PM
Intent to harm = should be jail time (though with too many of today’s judges it doesn’t)
Ending a pregnancy on the delivery date with a bullet = should be jail time
Non term-limited judges = out-of-touch legal decisions such as this one
statsman on October 19, 2006 at 3:12 PM
I have always said I unequivocally support a woman’s right to “choose”. As a known conservative, this invariably brings about statements of disbelief, the spotting of a sudden opportunity to scream “hypocrite” or, for the brighter ones out there, the resigned anticipation for the other shoe to drop.
The other shoe is, of course, I support a woman’s right to choose right up to the point of where she chooses to become pregnant, after that, she has made her choice and, like every other person on the face of this planet, should have to live with the consequences of that choice.
To do anything less is to demean women and support the outrageous notion that they can’t be held responsible for their own choices, because . . . . . . ?
Because why, exactly? Are they too stupid, too naive, too ignorant, or what? To relegate them to not having to live with the consequences of their own choices, is to relegate them to being something less than those who society expects to live with those choices.
So which is it? Is a woman a lesser being, more along the lines of an immature child, who cannot be expected to live with the consequences of their choices or should all sides of this debate be intellectually honest and expect women to live with their choices, just like men are expected to do?
Fatal on October 19, 2006 at 3:15 PM
So, who paid for this young woman’s medical care after she murdered her baby? Who was responsible for (presumably) surgically removing her dead baby from her body and sewing up the mess she must have made of her abdomen? Who took care of her other two children while she was recovering? I guess the taxpayers did, since she was described in the article as “poor and desperate.” In other words, beyond her absolutely repugnant act of murder, she also expected society to save her life for free.
I think if a woman has one or more kids on welfare (which I assume this “poor and desperate” young woman is), she should be required to be on long-term birth control (shots, implants, etc.) as a condition of continued benefits. That poor baby should never even have been conceived. But beyond that, there’s no excuse for her not simply having the baby and giving it up for adoption–she had already carried the baby to term, and childbirth could not have been more traumatic or expensive for her than a gunshot wound to the belly!
aero on October 19, 2006 at 3:22 PM
I wish. I mean I wish the logic weren’t true. I agree that’s insane and struggle sometimes with the concept that mothers in this society are harming their own children in the one place children should be the safest, the womb.
It feels like I’m having dinner with the Mad Hatter.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Clearly, she did a horrible thing, but why are we assuming that she was in right mind and that this was cold, calculated decision?
You folks remember that writer on the east coat last year who wrote a column in which she confessed to aborting her baby because she decided she didn’t want motherhood interfering with her comfortable lifestyle? THAT was about as cold and calculating as one can get.
Shooting yourself in the stomach? That speaks to me of something that goes beyond mere desperation and into the murky swamp of crazy. Good luck arguing that one, folks.
ccwbass on October 19, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Freelancer,
I respect your opinion as you stated it. I should have been more clear about what I considered euthanasia. I consider any situation where a person is understanding about their decision to end their own life. Assisted suicide and Do Not Recuscitate being at the top of the list. Without the benefit of previous instruction, we should always side with life.
We will have to differ on the Capitol Punishment stance. A life is a life regardless of how innocent or guilty it may be. I base that on my interpretation of God’s law; not man’s.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 3:25 PM
I blame Bush for not giving her ‘boyfriend’ a condom.
Mr. Bingley on October 19, 2006 at 3:25 PM
Well said…
E L Frederick on October 19, 2006 at 3:26 PM
You’ve established that there’s a boundary line at some point prior to birth at which killing something in the womb (whether you call it a fetus or a baby) is ‘murder.’ So far, so good. Now …
Where, specifically, do you draw that boundary, and why there as opposed to elsewhere? Why not earlier? Or, for that matter, why not later - say up utill the ‘fetus’ / baby turns 18? No fair saying, “because the law says so” - I’m looking for logical, ethics-based reasoning.
I’m not singling out any one poster, by the way. It’s just that this comment raised that question, and I’ve never actually heard a decent argument.
psrch on October 19, 2006 at 3:32 PM
In Illinois, it’s an abortion.
Quisp on October 19, 2006 at 3:32 PM
I read this story as my little precious baby is inside of me kicking and squirming around. I just can not imagine how anyone could defend this girl, or say that it’s not a crime. Could she not feel her baby hiccuping and hitting the sides of her tummy with little elbows, feet and hands? Did she not press into her belly and be greeted back by a little foot pushing out? Did she not see the ultrasound of 10 little fingers and 10 little toes?
What she did is murder and there is no excuse for it.
The abortion debate should have nothing to do with this. Murder is Murder. Couldn’t she be prosecuted under Lacy and Conner’s Law?
Starfox5253 on October 19, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Liberal conundrum:
1) Guns are evil and must be banned.
HOWEVER…
2) It turns out that guns allow women to make a “choice” to end their pregnancies all the way up to the day of delivery, which is noble and wonderful and must be allowed.
Solution: No one except pregnant women can own guns.
aero on October 19, 2006 at 3:34 PM
my question is…. how does this fly under the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution?
We are NOT treating men and women the same, due to a biological condition.
Pretty dang silly…. she should be in jail…
and then people wonder why we don’t trust the courts anymore….
sigh….
Romeo13 on October 19, 2006 at 3:34 PM
I felt the same way about a woman who had no problem drowning her five children and then calling the police on herself. But she was still charged with a crime and actually spent time in jail.
The same is true of those kids at prom who dump their kids in a bathroom and run away.
But still, we charge them with a crime. Go figure.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 3:36 PM
The term “crazy” is thrown around way too much, and is used, IMHO, as an excuse in far too many cases. What about child abuse? You’ve gotta be ‘crazy’ to want to hurt a child, or to think that shaking him/her will get them quiet. I heard of a woman recently who used her baby as a club to beat her boyfriend. And weren’t the terrorists ‘crazy’ on 9/11 to think that killing a couple of thousand people would make us back down?
No, she’s not crazy, and doesn’t deserve the protection of the law. She deserves jail, or worse.
dalewalt on October 19, 2006 at 3:36 PM
No, she does not have a Constitutional right to shoot herself like that. No mother has the right to kill her unborn child. I don’t even hold with the mother’s life in danger clause. Every mother I know would die for her children, just as I would die for mine.
Roe v Wade is bad Constitutional law. The more science advances, the more it becomes clear just how wrong it was.
It’s amazing to me that the same ones preaching science instead of religion (evolution arguement) ingore science when it comes to abortion.
Chuck on October 19, 2006 at 3:40 PM
ccwbass said:
She may not have been in her right mind, might even have been crazy, but the act was clearly premeditated and calculated. She got a gun, asked someone else to load it for her, went to a place where someone would save her life after she did it, and killed the baby on the day it was to be born. She didn’t just find a loaded gun in the street and shoot her stomach without understanding what it meant. She had a plan and carried it out. That’s cold and calculating.
aero on October 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM
psrch, I think Limerick does a great job clearly stating a scientific Pro Life opinion:
Logic like that leaves very little wiggle room for a Pro Choice opinion. Abortion kills a person.
natesnake on October 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM
I cannot understand what it would take to abort a child. As father I know how intense my love is for my children. I will do everything in my power to protect them. How can a woman who can feel the life growing inside her body not have a connection to that child, a desire to protect it. This woman carried her child for nine months before she decided to kill it. To me that is monsterous. Beyond comprehension.
elBarto on October 19, 2006 at 3:42 PM
Well, maybe we’ll have a democratic House and SEnate in 10 days and all these problems will be solved.
Labamigo on October 19, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Personally, my boundary is this: If the baby is viable outside of the woman’s body it should not be aborted, unless it’s a (very rare) case of a woman’s health being jeopardized. Even then, wouldn’t a C-section with an attempt to save the baby’s life be a better option?
I certainly don’t see how this case would fit into that category. Health issues? How would a bullet in the gut be good for the woman’s health?
Furthering my personal opinion: the very second a woman decides to carry the fetus to term, even if she’s only 4 weeks pregnant, then it’s a baby. If someone does something to intentionally harm the woman and the baby, it should be murder.
Good luck making any of that a law. I’m sure people have a bazillion arguments against me, but that’s my opinion.
CookeyD on October 19, 2006 at 3:46 PM
I agree with that concept but would never want a law in place that would not allow another person self preservation.
We already have laws that make self preservation legal, even if it means you have to kill someone else. For instance, if two people are on a desert island without any food, then it is legal for one person to kill the other for food. Or if they’re on a boat in the middle of nowhere, and the boat cannot support two people, then one person is allowed to throw the other person overboard even if it means the other person will die.
So while I myself would never want to choose my own life over the life of a child I might have, I wouldn’t force other women to be similarly selfless on the matter of sacrificing their lives.
For me personally, I’d only want to even consider abortion if neither I nor the baby would survive otherwise.
Esthier on October 19, 2006 at 3:47 PM
WHAT!!!!
Uh, no Esthier; neither of theose circumstances are law.
dalewalt on October 19, 2006 at 3:53 PM
Heinously heinous. You can vote whether she wass justified or not here.
Valiant on October 19, 2006 at 3:54 PM
I was totally emotionally screwed up while I was pregnant(bulimia, pre partum depression and post partum psychosis) that I’m sure the pro-deathers would have thought that I was a prime candidate for an abortion.
It would be the best thing for poor little me and my then husband, right? Actually I’ve been asked why-under the circumstances I didn’t just abort.
WHY?!!!
While I made the decision to leave my son as an “only” after what I went through-my ex husband and I love our very bright and very funny soon-to be teenager. He’s also loved by 2 step-parents etc.
Yeah-he’s a smart-ass, but look at my handle.
He comes by that naturally.lol
Look what we would’ve missed if we had taken the other route.
What that “thing” did was take the easy way out and put the blame on her innocent little baby-rather than do the responsible thing.
Who was her lawyer-Peter Singer?
Makes me sick.
annoyinglittletwerp on October 19, 2006 at 3:59 PM
In 1996, (the last year with reliable numbers) there were 1.37 Million abortions in the US. There may have be two or three back-alley abortion deaths per year if abortion were criminalized. If you wanted to play a numbers game, how do you justify 1.37 Million innocents sacrificed to “save” the lives of a handful of mentally disturbed, self-absorbed hedonists?
stonemeister on October 19, 2006 at 3:59 PM
I’m not trying to beat up on you Esthier, but I don’t think you are right here. Actually, the British courst delt with a similar case where a bunch of sailors in a life boat killed one of their own who was too weak to survive. They killed him and ate him. And it saved their lives.
But when they got back, they were prosecuted and convicted. It was controversial, cuz they were under truely dire circumstances, and all of them probably would have died if they didn’t kill and eat that one weak sailor.
But they got convicted none the less.
What this has to do with abortion, well I kinda seem to have wandered far away from the original topic.
I get confused easily…
Oooh! Look! Something shiney! Cool…
.
.
.
.
What were we talking about?
EFG on October 19, 2006 at 4:00 PM
If I’m not mistaken, if you aren’t considering adoption as a viable option, and allowing only abortion, you’re not very pro-”choice”, are you?
stonemeister on October 19, 2006 at 4:04 PM
I’ve never been pregnant, but I’ve been assured that despite all the propaganda about “blooming” and whatnot, pregnancy is physically miserable for most women, especially toward the end.
So to be pregnant for nine months–up until the freaking DUE DATE–only to kill the baby, especially when less physically damaging methods to kill the baby are readily available a month or two into gestation (different topic: why aren’t the “compassionate” liberals lined up to donate abortions to “low-income” women out of their own pockets? Why must they be funded by the federal government?), this woman has to have a serious undiagnosed mental illness. In addition to being a total asshat (sorry, I can’t think of any better words that haven’t already been used) toward the baby, the judge is doing the woman a serious disservice–an “insanity” plea would have started the ball rolling to get her the help she needs.
I’m hoping the silver lining is that the shooting sufficiently damaged her uterus so that no further children have to suffer, and maybe she can concentrate on not destroying the lives of her two existing children.
Radish on October 19, 2006 at 4:18 PM
CookeyD, with scientific advances there will come a day when a baby will be viable outside the womb at every stage of development—from conception on. According to your “opinion”, abortion shouldn’t be allowed at all when that day comes. Just because scientists/doctors are not smart enough to save a baby at this point in history, you think it’s fine to kill it?
And is a premee really “viable”? What does that mean? Without huge intervention it’ll die—but a 3 year-old kid can’t survive on his own, either! Viability is an arbitrary point that doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
…and as far as the mother “choosing” if her fetus is a baby or not…oy…. That’s the slippery slope that leaves my wife with no logical reason not to kill off my 13 year-old—if she “chooses” to.
I hope you’ll reconsider your views on this topic. Of all the positions one could hold—abortion always for any reason, no abortion ever, no abortion except as self-defense, or abortion at some stage of development (ie. your position)—yours is the most illogical and arbitrary. This it through.
jdpaz on October 19, 2006 at 4:27 PM
Are you kidding me… this is so far outta frakkin hand, this should be treated as a homicide, this fraktard should be put away, sterilized and never seen or heard from again.
God what is this country coming to.
Viper1 on October 19, 2006 at 4:33 PM
yeah…whatever you do, make sure you this it through.
THINK!!!
jdpaz on October 19, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Radish-
I’m not sure what women you have talked to, but as a person who is currently pregnant with her first child, I can tell you it has not been “physically miserable” and I don’t know of any other woman that would say that either. It is difficult in the first trimester, with feeling sick, but only about half of pregnant women even have morning sickness. The 2nd trimester was wonderful. I felt so amazing the whole time. I am just starting the 3rd trimester and I know that I won’t feel the best sometimes, but it really is just minor inconvenience in the big picture.
I totally agree with you that this woman is a sicko for carrying the baby all the way to term and then kill it on it’s birthday. If she would have waited mere hours, the baby would have been fine. She could have given it up and that would have been it. She deserves to be in jail.
Starfox5253 on October 19, 2006 at 4:39 PM
You can get free condoms, BC pills, and any other form of birth control at any age. In jr. high I knew people who were on the pill for free from Planned Parenthood. Too lazy or irresponsilbe to take a pill every day? Easy- get the shot that lasts 6 months. There are no excuses.
The choice begins prior to conception, except in rape.
I heard my baby’s heart beat at 6 weeks. No “clump of cells” has its own functioning heart.
Especially in light of the fact that this person has prior children, she should be called what she is: evil. I’m so sick of the “crazy” excuse. Back before psychologists ruled our culture, we called a criminal a criminal.
NTWR on October 19, 2006 at 4:42 PM
And that is the lunacy of the pro-abortion crowd. (Yes, I refuse to call them “pro-choice” because they are not pro-choice. They are pro-abortion. If abortion is not murder, why not be pro-abortion?)
This is my question: why does a 4 week old unborn child who is deemed “wanted” have any more of a right to life than a 4 week old unborn child who was unplanned or unwanted? Either it is a life, or it is not. Either it’s okay to kill or it is not.
Furthermore, at what point do we decide that a child could survive outside the womb? There have been many premature babies that have survived birth and many that have not. How do you determine the “magic moment” or the exact millisecond that an unborn child is officially considered a valuable life. Was it dead before? Was it not alive? Do we just make an average guess and allow the murder of the unlucky ones that happen to be capable of surviving outside the womb but may not be at the determined “magic moment?”
tiekitwist on October 19, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »