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

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 09:51 PM

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

Prosecutors say that on the morning she was scheduled to give birth, Skinner drove to an auto dealer's parking lot, took a gun, and shot herself in the belly, killing the fetus in an act of self-abortion. Skinner was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion.

Is Skinner a criminal?

Today, a Virginia judge said no. The charges were dropped, her case dismissed.

Should he have ruled otherwise?

The law in question states that it is illegal to administer or cause an illegal abortion on an expectant mother.

But Skinner's defense lawyer, Kevin Martingayle, argued that the law did not make it a crime for a mother to cause her own abortion. Ultimately, that argument convinced Circuit Court Judge W. R. Carter.

If someone else had pulled the trigger, he or she would be criminally accountable. Because it was the pregnant woman herself, no crime was committed, the court ruled.

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?
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Do pregnant women have a constitutional right to shoot themselves in the belly?

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What kind of rights does the fetus really have?

That depends on what the law says, I guess (unless you wish to include non-legal rights).

As for this case, it isn't clear how the law applies.

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

That depends on what the law says, I guess (unless you wish to include non-legal rights).

As for this case, it isn't clear how the law applies.

The law says it's illegal to cause an "illegal" abortion on an expectant mother.

This abortion was deemed illegal, even by the judge. Why does it matter if the person carrying out the abortion was the mother? In what way does that make it ok in the eyes of the law? It's fuzzy logic to me.

That's like saying it's illegal to sell a gun without the 10 day cool off period. Yet a gun dealer gets off free for not following the law. How is he above the law? How is the mother above the law and is somehow allowed to carry out an "illegal" abortion.

Thorgrim · 10-19-2006, 10:07 PM

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?

I like how you can call something ridiculous without actually posting the statute first

If you gave me a citation I could look it up on LexisNexis

Here is a hint though: if someone fails one part of a statute, they are innocent

If a burglary statute says "at night" then someone who breaks in at noon to steal is not guilty of burglary

Again, write your congressman, had the legislators been clear (they clearly could have foreseen that a mother might try to abort a baby herself) this wouldn't have happened...the judge is there to rule not to fix the legislator (actually this opinion sounds like something Scalia would write)

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I like how you can call something ridiculous without actually posting the statute first

If you gave me a citation I could look it up on LexisNexis

Here is a hint though: if someone fails one part of a statute, they are innocent

If a burglary statute says "at night" then someone who breaks in at noon to steal is not guilty of burglary

Again, write your congressman, had the legislators been clear (they clearly could have foreseen that a mother might try to abort a baby herself) this wouldn't have happened...the judge is there to rule not to fix the legislator (actually this opinion sounds like something Scalia would write)

n Virginia law, if an abortion is deemed illegal, Statute 18.2-71 — the hotly contested statute involved in this case — makes a criminal out of "any person [to] administer to, or cause … any drug or other thing" with intent to destroy an unborn child.

This whole case is disgusting. Her baby was brought to FULL term. It was ready to be birthed. She shot herself and then had to give birth to her shot up baby. How messed up is this woman.

I didn't look up the statute, just going by the article. Which to me clearly shows this woman broke the law.

Stylerod · 10-19-2006, 10:14 PM

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

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

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

Seconded.

lew · 10-19-2006, 10:16 PM

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:16 PM

I'll agree she is messed up, but that is to be expected if shooting yourself is less of a concern than having a child.

My comments were that based on a number of people in the article claiming the law does not apply to her (for some reason, and others mentioning roe vs wade).

Certainly from a basic reading the law seems to apply to everyone, however legal experts can dispute this, and when that happen someone has to make a decision

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

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

If she had, it's unlikely the child would have survived.

Thorgrim · 10-19-2006, 10:17 PM

give me a sec to find the statute

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'll agree she is messed up, but that is to be expected if shooting yourself is less of a concern than having a child.

My comments were that based on a number of people in the article claiming the law does not apply to her (for some reason, and others mentioning roe vs wade).

Certainly from a basic reading the law seems to apply to everyone, however legal experts can dispute this, and when that happen someone has to make a decision

I may get flamed for this. But I have a feeling this was an activist decision by a liberal judge.

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

give me a sec to find the statute

thx

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:18 PM

got it:

§ 18.2-71. Producing abortion or miscarriage, etc.; penalty.

Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-62; 1960, c. 358; 1970, c. 508; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

So I don't have the full answer. But it seems pretty clear cut as of now.

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I may get flamed for this. But I have a feeling this was an activist decision by a liberal judge.

It could very have been so. Politics and law are closely aligned so this is to be expected.

Stylerod · 10-19-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

got it:

So I don't have the full answer. But it seems pretty clear cut as of now.

But what about this part?

Except as provided in other sections of this article,

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It could very have been so. Politics and law are closely aligned so this is to be expected.

I'm reading this law and just can't see how this judge could rationalize this decision. I'm pro-choice. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not anti-abortion. But shooting your fetus on it's due date. Come on. There has to be something to prevent people from doing this.

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:24 PM

Interesting does that statue restrict the crime to males? If taken literally it does.

I expect the argument is based on the wording seems to apply that "any person" is not the mother.

JaJae · 10-19-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

But what about this part?

That's why I bolded it and said I didn't have the full answer. But, I read the article and couldn't find anything in it or other child laws in the state such as 71.1 LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-71.1 that would take any criminality away from the mother.

It seems cut and dry that this mother is guilty by VA law and if they want to allow mothers to be able to shoot their fetuses on their due dates they should update the laws to allow it and keep these activist decisions out of the court rooms.

Kytro · 10-19-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm reading this law and just can't see how this judge could rationalize this decision. I'm pro-choice. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not anti-abortion. But shooting your fetus on it's due date. Come on. There has to be something to prevent people from doing this.

Law isn't always all inclusive, and is subject to clarifying intent. It is something to do with how law is applied is sometime ambigious.