U.S: Woman sentenced to 20 years for having a miscarriage

[Larry of the Lawn]

A testimony which was given AFTER she threw the body in the trash. If I came to my father's home and find him cold and obviously dead for days I do not (repeat: DO NOT) throw his body into the trash.

Well maybe if your dead father popped out of your vagina you'll have a better comparison.

edit: less caustic post

[messem]

Well maybe if your dead father popped out of your vagina you'll have a better comparison.

Now; Well maybe you're right and we shouldn't treat "things" popping out of one's vagina as human beings. I will give it a due consideration.

1 minute later: After I thought about it I have to say that if that thing that pops out of the vagina is a dildo one can throw it away. If it is a fetus/baby/child (however you call it) one can't.

[Elder Sister]

There is so much scariness in this thread. The topic is scary enough; reactions to it are just mind boggling.

This woman and the situation she's in is pitiful. My state tried to pass legislation that's very similar to Indiana's several years ago and it got voted down. I'm so thankful for that, but worried about what's happening in other places.

It seems like we just take two steps forward and one step back.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Sadly, it is more like one step forward and two steps back.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IamMe90,

Oh I see, didn't think about fetus vs. living baby distinction. In that case though, it seems to me that your claim relies on the assumption that a fetus has a life to be endangered... which I also don't agree with.

I'm pro-choice but I've always found the idea that the fetus is not "alive" until it is born disengenious in the extreme. The fetus is alive by all meterics we can apply. It may not be a fully "human" life but it is clearly alive. Claiming a fetus is not alive leads to an absurd situation where you claim that a fetus pre-birth is not alive but miliseconds after emerging from the Mother's uterus the fetus transmuts into an infant and is alive. That doesn't square with any of the evidence about the development of the fetus over the term of the pregnancy.

I think Peter Singer has a much more difficult but honest take on the "fetus v. infant" distinction:

abortion may be stated as the following syllogism:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

A human fetus is an innocent human being.

Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[29]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that defenders of abortion attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer finds this argument flawed in that human development is a gradual process, and it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion, then; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[30]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.[emphasis added]

I don't agree with Singer on this argument but his argument doesn't resort to ignoring what we know about fetuses and their development to justify his beliefs. It is internally consistent.

[Theda Baratheon]

I simply feel the woman's life is more important than a fetus' and find the belief that the fetus' "rights" trump the woman's "rights" gross and dangerous.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IamMe90,

I've done a little google searching and I can't find anything about the legality of home birthing without a certified midwife in the US. Can you provide a citation so we settle this specific dispute once and for all?

I believe that is because it is mostly unregulated. Both my wife and my children were born at home with the assistance of a liscenced Midwife. There was a family in my church who chose to have a homebirth without a midwife. Just the mother and her husband. The baby was fine. Not something I think is terribly safe to choose but as far as I know, not illegal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Theda,

I simply feel the woman's life is more important than a fetus' and find the belief that the fetus' "rights" trump the woman's "rights" gross and dangerous.

What I don't think people should do is attempt to claim that a fetus is not alive. That seems like lieing to onesself to avoid difficult facts.

What my position turns on is that the Fetus exists at the sufferance of its host. It is the Mother's body sustaining and growing the fetus, as such, until the fetus can exist on its own it is the host's perogative to cease support.

[messem]

I simply feel the woman's life is more important than a fetus' and find the belief that the fetus' "rights" trump the woman's "rights" gross and dangerous.

Fair enough. What has that to do with that particular case?

[The guy from the Vale]

Fair enough. What has that to do with that particular case?

It has to do with this case because if abortion was decriminalized or legalized, there would be no case in the first place, no matter whether the woman actually aborted the fetus.

Now a 24th week abortion would be problematic even from my generally pro-choice stance, as the fetus definitely is more developed by then than it would be in the first trimester. But it would have to be proven that she had an abortion. Reversing the burden of proof in cases of miscarriage sounds like a terrible way to go about this.

[Biglose]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Look, the issue is quite simple. I do not argue that he is not scientifically correct. The major issue is, that the next step he takes to so to speak justify abortion is a step about every non-sociopathic person won't take.

The last "culture" to really mentally take that step was Nazi-Germany.

The unforunate fact of the matter is, that at our current level of social and technological development abortion rights are necessary. Without them, we would cause more harm then we would prevent. (By a large margin)

So fine in a hundred years the ignorant part of the human race may call us evil barbarians for how our society functions today, much like a lot of people today think for example about the middle ages for the same reasons. Simply because the restrictions (mostly technological and infrastructual) under which we have to live will not apply to them anymore. And as much as I do not care about the opinions of the self rightious and ignorant of today, as much do I care about the ignorant of tomorrow.

So yes, to allow it only for a given time sounds like a good idea. And the better technology becomes the less need there will be. Sure strictly speaking it is a lie to say it is not human or it is not alive.

But so is Newtonien physics in its own way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

I strongly disagree with Singer regarding infanticide. All I'm saying is that his argument, unlike the one that claims fetus' are not alive, relies upon the empirical facts and is internally consistent.

With regard to this case: twenty years seem excessive in the extreme.

[sj4iy]

Disgusting. It's this type of shit that makes me worry for my daughter one day.

[Biglose]

Biglose,

I strongly disagree with Singer regarding infanticide. All I'm saying is that his argument, unlike the one that claims fetus' are not alive, relies upon the empirical facts and is internally consistent.

I am not saying you are incorrect. But what I am saying is that a slight cloudy definition of "life" is (in my opinion) less of a lie, than a sharp definition which afterwards needs (as much as I understand in yours too) kind of lets say couragous conclusion. (That a lot of feminists cheered for singer (espacially many with a strong pro choice stand), well I explain it with "if you do not really understand an Idea..."

If you try to arguee for abortion under the notion that it is morally aquivalent to killing an infant, you are done!

I mean do you think you find one mentally healthy mother or for that matter one mentally healthy father who would be willing to go like: Well, driving over my infant child is not that bad, it's like driving over my cat...

[davos]

A testimony which was given AFTER she threw the body in the trash. If I came to my father's home and find him cold and obviously dead for days I do not (repeat: DO NOT) throw his body into the trash.

The medical evidence backs up Ms. Patel's assertions. The fetus was either born dead or died seconds afterward. Not rvrn the prosecition disputed this. Yes, throwing the remains in the dumpster is, on its face, a repulsive decision but your attempt to dicredit Ms Patel's testimony using this decision is simply contrary to the fsctsxof the case.

I would also like to point out that Ms Patel's choice in the disposal of the remains are consistent with the actions of someone who is terrified but rationale. First, she was dealing with a pregnancy that she did not want, something that is an awful experience of anyone. Second, she had just gone through a miscarriage, a frightening and sudden experience in its own right. Thirdly, she was likely at least somewhat aware of the legal environment in Indiana and the potential her to face criminal charges for something beyond her control. Given these circumstances, I dont blame her for not handling the remains properly. If we have laws and social pressures that dehumanize pregnant women (and that's the ultimate effect of these laws, to reduce the rights of a pregnant woman to less than those perceived for an unborn child) then it maybe rationale for a woman in such circumstances to make decisions we might find repulsive. A repulsive legal environment forces repulsive choices on desperate people.

[Seli]

Fair enough. What has that to do with that particular case?

When the dominant political stance attacks abortion, and even birth control it is involved in cases like these. And this is Indiana, one of the states where the upset against abortion has lead to an attack on Planned Parenthood. Which is one of the facilities that could have informed the woman before she even got pregnant or could have helped her earlier in pregnancy. And a facility which is important in cases like these, where there an individual is probably concerned to trust their usual medical providers or insurance policy.

[Athias]

With regard to this case: twenty years seem excessive in the extreme.

What, in your opinion, wouldn't be excessive in the extreme?

-----

Abortion is one of those issues that sheds light on inconsistencies across party lines. It violates the conquestionalism that's pervasive in left-wing politics; it bilaterally contradicts the non-aggression priniciple found in libertarianism; and it unveils the abitrary notion of freedom within right-wing politics.

I would like to think that I'm "pro-life" in that I do believe having sex--and therefore risking pregnancy--entails a responsiblity, if one of only a priori consideration of one's own confort with getting pregnant, and the subsequent birth of a child. I also don't find a fetus less valuable because it's at an earlier stage of physiological development--which often leads to abritrarily selected conveniences. With that said however, I do propound not in some gynocentric fervor like "it's a woman's right" but in the interest of self-ownership that a person has the right to behave one's body as one pleases--even one who's pregnant. If we are to in fact consider the fetus a live human being, which I do, then it too is accountable to the same moral standard. That is, its utility--albeit inadvertent--doesn't justify the coercive submission of its mother's resources and/or labor. Unfortunately, the withholding of her resources, depending on its viability, sentences the fetus to certain death. But that's primarily because of the fetus's inability to sustain itself. Again, if we're to see the fetus as a live human being, then it too bears no right to a person other than its own.

As for the case, Patel shouldn't have been arrested. But I will reserve further judgement until more facts about the fetus's death are revealed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Athias,

It is extreme because abortion is legal in the US. At worst this woman undertook a legal action in a disfavored manner. That doesn't warrant 20 years in prision.

[scotcat]

Well said, Ser Scot.

[Athias]

The states, however, are able to define limits. In Indiana, it's illegal to have an abortion after a 22 week gestation period. Accrding to the article, Patel's fetus was between 23-24 weeks. So wouldn't it be:

At worst this woman undertook an illegal action in a disfavored manner. That doesn't warrant 20 years in prision.

?