Does a pregnant woman have the right to shoot her fetus on its due date? - Page 3

nbiggershaft · 10-20-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

ABC News: Judge Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Killed Her Unborn Child

I find this to be absolutely ridiculous. It's undoubtedly a crime for someone else to shoot her to kill her fetus, even if given permission. Yet for her to do it herself her case is dismissed? Doesn't even go to trial? What about the fact that it was on her due date. An abortion at that time would be illegal anyway.

Why does the mother have the right to kill her unborn child but nobody else does? What kind of rights does the fetus really have?

Prolly let her off for being fucking nutso and not wanting to deal with a women who shot herself in the stomach.

Scrum · 10-20-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

It's abhorrent and this is exactly why the nubmers against abortion are growing and those against abortion actually out number those in favor of abortion now. Because abortion folks have taken it to the extreme accepting dispicable acts like this.

Just like the far righters saying God sicked Katrina on the US for allowing gay marriage.

Not trying to derail the thread but its this type of extreme shit that basically loses the argument for the party in question. This decision if it gets any press time at all will ultimately have a huge negative impact on the pro abortion folks.

This is one insane woman who shot herself and it killed her unborn baby.

Don't throw every pro-choicer under the bus because of this.

ballz2wallz · 10-20-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That's pretty disgusting. I wish she would have died instead.

Seconded.

Thirded.

WickedLou9 · 10-20-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Thirded.

fourthed-ed..?
fourthid...?
I am the 4th person to agree. yes that works.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-20-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

This is one insane woman who shot herself and it killed her unborn baby.

Don't throw every pro-choicer under the bus because of this.

Did you read it? I didn't throw every pro choicer under the bus I said its psycho prochoicers like this that give the rest of them bad names.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-20-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

fourthed-ed..?
fourthid...?
I am the 4th person to agree. yes that works.

fifthed

Scrum · 10-20-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Did you read it? I didn't throw every pro choicer under the bus I said its psycho prochoicers like this that give the rest of them bad names.

Because abortion folks have taken it to the extreme accepting dispicable acts like this.

I guess i'm one of the "abortion folks" and I don't find this acceptable.

WickedLou9 · 10-20-2006, 10:56 AM

The woman should have been sent to a mental ward for the rest of her life.

7960 · 10-20-2006, 11:03 AM

One of two things happened... either she killed a baby or performed an illegal abortion. I'd actually be ok with saying the baby wasn't born so she didn't technically kill a baby, but she had a fetus and took direct action to kill it so she performed an illegal abortion. What's the sentence for that?

Also, if someone had stabbed her and the baby died that person would have been charged with assault on her *and* that person would have been charged with either the baby's death and/or assault on an unborn baby. If the fetus died either way, how can someone else be charged with killling/assault/illegal abortion but not this woman?

Donkey® · 10-20-2006, 11:51 AM

What does it matter either way? The woman is obviously crazy and wouldn't have been convicted of anything. She would have had a nice padded cell to call home for a few years...nothing more.

7960 · 10-20-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What does it matter either way? The woman is obviously crazy and wouldn't have been convicted of anything. She would have had a nice padded cell to call home for a few years...nothing more.

can't figure out if your simpleton response requires the old

"then why isn't she in it?" reply, or
"then why do we lock up anyone who kills?" reply.

I mean, you *must* be at least partially insane to kill someone so why bother locking up anyone?

Thorgrim · 10-20-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

One of two things happened... either she killed a baby or performed an illegal abortion. I'd actually be ok with saying the baby wasn't born so she didn't technically kill a baby, but she had a fetus and took direct action to kill it so she performed an illegal abortion. What's the sentence for that?

we already discusssed the sentence, re-read the thread

KatKanPlay · 10-20-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I mean, you *must* be at least partially insane to kill someone so why bother locking up anyone?

If there is an award for simpleton responses, this one should take it.

Any woman that goes through 9 months of pregnancy and all that it includes and then does something this extreme must be given more consideration than simply a literal interpretation of the law. Isnt that why we have judges?

7960 · 10-20-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

we already discusssed the sentence, re-read the thread

the question was rhetorical mostly because your extreme narrow interpretation of the law will allow her to get away with a crime

7960 · 10-20-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If there is an award for simpleton responses, this one should take it.

Any woman that goes through 9 months of pregnancy and all that it includes and then does something this extreme must be given more consideration than simply a literal interpretation of the law. Isnt that why we have judges?

I didn't say she was guilty of murder, I said she was guilty of a crime. Being pregnant is no excuse for commiting a crime. It may be a mitigating circumstance that comes into play for which crime and what sentence, but it does not excuse crimes committed.

Thorgrim · 10-20-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

the question was rhetorical mostly because your extreme narrow interpretation of the law will allow her to get away with a crime

yeah, sure

anyway

the trial is over, this isn't a matter of whether she will be allowed to get away with that crime...its already done with...

7960 · 10-20-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

yeah, sure

anyway

the trial is over, this isn't a matter of whether she will be allowed to get away with that crime...its already done with...

Actually, when I typed "one of two things happened" you misunderstood what I meant by "one." I define "one" to mean "a psycho lying whore killed a perfectly viable baby and is now using a technicality to get away with it." Please add that to your dictionary as an alternative definition, and remember, my answer is just as correct as anyone else's because that's what *I* believed "one" to mean. If you disagree then you have to prove that's not what I thought it to mean.

KatKanPlay · 10-20-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I didn't say she was guilty of murder, I said she was guilty of a crime. Being pregnant is no excuse for commiting a crime. It may be a mitigating circumstance that comes into play for which crime and what sentence, but it does not excuse crimes committed.

Isnt it the mitigating circumstances that determine whether a crime has been committed or not? When we see a rash of pregnant women shooting themselves in the stomach to in order to get around the law, then we may need to amend the law. Evidently mitigating circumstances led to the decision that this particular case either wasnt covered under the law or the law couldnt be specifically applied. I really dont know.

I cant even imagine what would drive a person to such extremes but I do believe mental instability played a role.

IminWonderland · 10-20-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Isnt it the mitigating circumstances that determine whether a crime has been committed or not? When we see a rash of pregnant women shooting themselves in the stomach to in order to get around the law, then we may need to amend the law. Evidently mitigating circumstances led to the decision that this particular case either wasnt covered under the law or the law couldnt be specifically applied. I really dont know.

I cant even imagine what would drive a person to such extremes but I do believe mental instability played a role.

Her whole situation screams of instability. I don't see that this makes pro-choicers look bad, it just makes this woman incredibley nuts. Her lawyer used a loop hole in the law to get her off.