messem Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 No, an unborn child .... The whole point of my argumentation was about a newly born child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Nah, it's super easy to see why she would be convicted. Jury trials are, in reality, scary as fuck because juries are actually much less likely to adhere to any standard of logic or legal procedure. At first glance, I'd bet that they heard "she dumped it in a dumpster" and that was the case right there. They decided she was guilty based on that.Hmm, good point. I suppose with things presented as they have been here, it's natural to assume she would be acquitted. But in a situation where one of the first things you hear is "she dumped it in a dumpster" I guess it's easy to see where the guilty verdict would come from. I've also worked off a much more idealistic version of a jury who actually listen to the evidence. I realise some people won't even do that though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The whole point of my argumentation was about a newly born child. Which in this case (with near certainty) died within moments after being born. And would have even in hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 .... No we don't. At least, not unless you are happy with permanent sterilization. All non permanent methods have fairly large failure rates. My first kid was born on the pill, and second with condoms. I've since had the snip, but I'd hardly call an almost irreversible surgical intervention a reasonable "technology that means that having sex never has to result in a birth." Apologies, that was a slight hyperbole. As long as one isn't willing to consider abortion as part of the toolkit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prue Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The whole point of my argumentation was about a newly born child. Ah OK. Well, in that case, 'unterlassene Hilfeleistung' would apply for witnesses of an emergency situation, and it could be 'Tötung durch Unterlassen' (homicide by negligence?) by the mother, as she has a special obligation to help her own child (Garantenstellung). edit: Of course only if the mother or a witness could have done anything to prevent the child's death after it was born. Which is not the case here apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Actually fetuses can be 'maintained' out of womb for quite a long while now, like almost 4 months or something, and it will probably increase - because scientists are actively trying to make a artificial womb.Actually we could probably already do it if we used pigs So legislation making it actually illegal to have abortions by equating it to murder could get the 'either/or' treatment 'she could have gone to a state clinic to put up her BABY in a state orphanage, but she didn't, premeditated murder, throw the book'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Laws limiting the age after which a baby can be aborted make sense. They are good laws. Even the most pro choice advocate is likely to be uncomfortable with the idea of a 35 week termination.Post potential viability abortions are quite rare, third trimester ones are extremely rare and usually only occur in situations where the woman's life or health is at risk or the fetus is not viable or will have serious disabilities (like vegetative state or other severe disabilities). Late term abortion for elective reasons is illegal in much of the country, and as long as there is an exception for life and health of the woman, the Supreme Court (even when it was much more pro choice) has ruled elective post-viability abortions can be made illegal. Also most of these are wanted pregnancies. And most of these procedures are extremely expensive. So really this has very little to do with the case this thread is about and I'm not sure why you bring it up and I would think someone who is pro choice would want women who have a good chance of dying if they carry a pregnancy to term to be able have their lives saved even at week 35.P.S. IUDs have very low failure rates, less than 1%. So there is quite reliable non permanent birth control available if more women knew about it, seriously considered it and could afford it.I think clearly though this woman has been sentenced as a murderer would be (20 years is a long tIme), which is probably what the judge's thinking was, and it doesn't seem to me that even most pro-lifers who would criminalize all abortion believe women should get sentences like that, and that the state didn't seem to prove abortion in any case, so basically she was sentenced to 20 years for considering aborting an unwanted pregnancy and putting the fetus in the dumpster, because from what I can tell, that's all that was actually proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 fgftv,Yup, judges in the US have to be elected. They also tend to get sponsored by the prison-industrial complex for handing out higher punishment. So... yeah.That is not true of Federal Judges nor of all States. Judges in South Carolina are not elected by popular ballot. They are nominated and then elected by the State legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messem Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Which in this case (with near certainty) died within moments after being born. And would have even in hospital. Good thing she knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Good thing she knew that.It was somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks gestation, and it was dead.She knew that, well know that, everyone who doesn't believe in magic knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messem Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Ah OK. Well, in that case, 'unterlassene Hilfeleistung' would apply for witnesses of an emergency situation, and it could be 'Tötung durch Unterlassen' (homicide by negligence?) by the mother, as she has a special obligation to help her own child (Garantenstellung). edit: Of course only if the mother or a witness could have done anything to prevent the child's death after it was born. Which is not the case here apparently. yes, no, jein. Unless it is very self explaining that any help is useless you have the duty to help. It wasn't a stillbirth so how could she know? She didn't even try. Probably never had the intention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 ignored messem, life may or may not be sacred but my time certainly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messem Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 It was somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks gestation, and it was dead. She knew that, well know that, everyone who doesn't believe in magic knows that. Okay. You convinced me. Kick it in the trash. btw: 25 weeks gestation? Under better circumstances pretty good survival rate. Obviously magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 fgftv,That is not true of Federal Judges nor of all States. Judges in South Carolina are not elected by popular ballot. They are nominated and then elected by the State legislature. Indiana, the state in question, has retention elections though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 yes, no, jein. Unless it is very self explaining that any help is useless you have the duty to help. It wasn't a stillbirth so how could she know? She didn't even try. Probably never had the intention to.Yes, because there is so much aid she could have rendered to this tiny foetus that died within seconds of being born, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messem Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 ignored messem, life may or may not be sacred but my time certainly is. Everybody needs to set his own priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Okay. You convinced me. Kick it in the trash. btw: 25 weeks gestation? Under better circumstances pretty good survival rate. Obviously magic. You are talking as though she was acting maliciously like some sort of one-dimensional villain and wasn't completely terrified, traumatized and desperate. I think (and this has been REPEATED IN THIS THREAD) that we ALL AGREE that the image of a fetus in a dumpster is a horrible, grotesque and sad one. But just because this is such a horrible image does NOT mean this woman got any enjoyment out of it or that she acted with malice at all. You are being deliberately DISINGENUOUS when you REPEATED make comments like ''oh yeah trust 'KICK' (look at your use of language here for fucks sake) it in the trash'' ''throw it in the trash'' you are deliberately using disingenuous violent sounding verbs in your comments to paint this woman like a sociopath villain when that just ISN'T the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 tgftv,Indiana, the state in question, has retention elections though.Okay, but you said "in the US" as though this were true everywhere in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prue Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 yes, no, jein. Unless it is very self explaining that any help is useless you have the duty to help. It wasn't a stillbirth so how could she know? She didn't even try. Probably never had the intention to. Both 'unterlassene Hilfeleistung' (denied help) and 'versuchte Aussetzung mit Todesfolge' (attempted desertion which caused death) would be superseded by 'versuchte Tötung durch Unterlassen' (attempted homicide by negligence) though. Again, if that can be proved at all though. E.g. that she admitted that she thought it possible that the child would survive if she tried to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I have a friend who has a 25 weeker, yes, when when born in a hospital (which as discussed this woman had NO legal duty to do & depending on speed of labor may not even have been possible) and given immediate and ongoing intensive care within that hospital survival rates are reasonable although by no means certain and almost certainly not for one born dead.At 22 or 23 weeks those survival rates are grim even under the best circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.