An inconvenient truth

[DaveP]

A woman cuts a living baby out of another woman's womb but can't be charged with murder.

Prosecutors said they could not charge Lane with murder in the unborn baby's death because of state law.

Colorado Republicans introduced legislation that would have allowed such a murder charge, but Democrats rejected the measure.

Some 38 US states have made killing a foetus a homicide despite objections from abortion rights supporters

Let me get this straight in my head then:-

You can't be charged with murdering an unborn baby because that would mean that every woman who has an abortion would be caught up in the net?

How inconvenient for the legislators that Dynel Lane caused them this embarrassment, no wonder they locked her up for 100 years.

In all my 66 years, I never heard of a woman cutting a baby out of a womb, but I guess it goes on all the time, silly me.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Troublemaker....

JR

 

[emrr]

Oversimplifications.

There was a case in the 1970s near me where two biker gangs rioted and a woman was killed with her foetus cut out of her body. I don't know how the laws applied at that time. 

 

[rob_gould]

I'm not generally one for internet memes, but

 

[DaveP]

Troublemaker....

JR

Not really, I was just pointing out the failing in the law in that state.

I am not a pro-lifer, in fact about 25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, which is natures way of avoiding genetic mistakes.

I acknowledge that there may be  reasons why it may be necessary, not least rape and incest, but something needs to be done to clarify the law for situations like this, in the UK we have the crime of child destruction.

Child destruction is the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence".  As the victim was about 8 months pregnant, it would have applied to her.

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

I am certain there have been numerous occasions when doctors are forced to choose between mother or baby.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Troublemaker....

JR

Not really, I was just pointing out the failing in the law in that state.

I am not a pro-lifer, in fact about 25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, which is natures way of avoiding genetic mistakes.

I acknowledge that there may be  reasons why it may be necessary, not least rape and incest, but something needs to be done to clarify the law for situations like this, in the UK we have the crime of child destruction.

Child destruction is the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence".  As the victim was about 8 months pregnant, it would have applied to her.

DaveP

This is a classic hot button political argument framed as a zygote having full citizenship, or a woman having full control over her body and anything growing inside it.

I think this is the wrong argument. Unwanted pregnancies should be made easier to prevent/avoid. The rest is not for government to decide.

Sadly some perverse government economic incentives reward children having children. Housing credits and monthly stipends allow the young lady to escape her unhappy household. More babies means more income.  This is a huge burden on society now and the generation of unwanted and poorly parented children so spawned will be a huge future cost.

Of course people have strong opinions about these emotionally charged arguments that will surely be flung against the wall this election cycle, to see what sticks. Elections seem to be about dividing us using whatever works.

JR

 

[DaveP]

I agree with all of that.

I guess its where we draw the line of viability that determines whether it's murder or not.

It was not my intention to stir up a debate on abortion, that is a separate but related issue.  It was how this miserable woman had tested the law in a way which it had never been imagined to be tested by an almost unthinkable crime.  But as Doug pointed out, it had actually happened before in 1970.

DaveP

 

[living sounds]

The woman got a life sentence, case closed IMHO.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Troublemaker....

JR

Not really, I was just pointing out the failing in the law in that state.

I am not a pro-lifer, in fact about 25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, which is natures way of avoiding genetic mistakes.

I acknowledge that there may be  reasons why it may be necessary, not least rape and incest, but something needs to be done to clarify the law for situations like this, in the UK we have the crime of child destruction.

Child destruction is the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence".  As the victim was about 8 months pregnant, it would have applied to her.

DaveP

I'm still not sure I understand just what the problem is here. The CNN says that "Lane was found guilty in February of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault and unlawful termination of a pregnancy. "

The thing with legislation is that one has to be careful with language. It seems the above is more reasonable than labeling a fetus a person which would make murdering persons ok in circumstances, assuming abortion is ok. It just seems like a recipe for disaster. By calling this an unlawful termination of a pregnancy one avoids that problem. That makes sense to me.

 

[Dumbascii]

That's from an episode of "Private Practice" (my wife's an addict). A mild-mannered woman goes psycho after having a miscarriage, then cuts the baby out of her psychoanalyst. Everybody lives, I think. Almost as entertaining as another doctor at the practice who deliberately carries to term a baby with no brain so it can be used as an organ donor when it dies a few minutes later. The tiny little gurgle sound it makes is spine chilling! 1st class sound design.