All things considered, a coathanger is safer

Mycroft said:
If it's your opinion that no crime was committed, why not just say so rather than to play these silly trollish games?
Click to expand...

I am asking you about your comment here:

Mycroft said:
The amazing thing is the judge ruled it wasn't a crime. WTF...?!!
Click to expand...

OK, you open a thread because you are suprised - "WTF", even - that the judge ruled that this wasn't a crime. Clearly, you think it was a crime.

So, I am asking you what crime you think was committed.

Would you care to answer the question?
 
HeavyAaron said:
False diachotomy.
Click to expand...

so.

Definately the desirable outcome would have been:
1) Deliver the baby.
2) Give up the baby for adoption (and potentially recapture medical bills from adoptive parents as is permitted by law).
3) Stay alive.

There was just no need for either of them to die.

Aaron
Click to expand...

Yet, more acceptable than what actually happened.
 
In 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.
Click to expand...

I thought this was intended to give something else for a prosecutor to charge, say, a felon with who shoots a gun, killing (some other woman's) unborn baby, who was wanted, not for a woman to kill her own unborn baby.
 
Beerina said:
I thought this was intended to give something else for a prosecutor to charge, say, a felon with who shoots a gun, killing (some other woman's) unborn baby, who was wanted, not for a woman to kill her own unborn baby.
Click to expand...

It sounds like, in this case, the prosecutor feels that the term "any person" applies to the mother, too.
On the other hand, the prosecution argues, that "any person" means all persons. The law applies to everyone, including a woman giving herself the abortion.

"Courts are bound by the plain meaning of that language. … 'Any' is an indefinite word and includes 'all' unless restricted," Virginia prosecutor James Wise wrote in court documents.
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
I am asking you about your comment here:



OK, you open a thread because you are suprised - "WTF", even - that the judge ruled that this wasn't a crime. Clearly, you think it was a crime.

So, I am asking you what crime you think was committed.

Would you care to answer the question?
Click to expand...

No, I will not answer your question.

Possible crimes have already been listed in this thread and I could certainly add to the list. I will not, however, do so in response to your question as it seems unlikely that your goal is meaningful dialogue of any kind.

If you wish to participate, please offer your own opinions or respond with your thoughts on other opinions offered here. If you're truly curious as to what possible crimes I might list, feel free to follow the thread and maybe I will say something later.
 
fuelair said:
or maybe have free and easy access to abortion and other legitimate family planning.:mad:
Click to expand...

While you're probably right, we don't know that she didn't. All the article said was that her boyfriend wouldn't pay for an abortion. What resources were available to her is unclear as was whether she was made aware of them and looked into them.
 
CFLarsen said:
I am asking you about your comment here:



OK, you open a thread because you are suprised - "WTF", even - that the judge ruled that this wasn't a crime. Clearly, you think it was a crime.

So, I am asking you what crime you think was committed.

Would you care to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Though I'm not MyCroft, I am a person who feels the judge ruled incorrectly.

And this is so easy to answer I'm amazed you're asking.

Was a crime committed?

No. The judge ruled that a crime wasn't. A crime is a legal term, and the justice system determines what does and does not qualify.

So why the suprise/disagreement with judge?

Had I been in the judge's shoes I would have likely ruled differently. In which event it would have been a crime. This doesn't change the fact that it was ruled not a crime.

Not rocket science,
Aaron
 
Last edited:
Katana said:
It sounds like, in this case, the prosecutor feels that the term "any person" applies to the mother, too.
Click to expand...

And that's part of why the courts look to the "legislative history" (something to which I don't have access, so I can't give you an analysis) in trying to figure out what a statute means.

Certainly if this statute had been passed in the wake of a well-publicized "gunman shoots pregnant woman who loses baby" incident and all the speeches involved "protecting women from having their unborn children brutally murdered by raving psychopaths," then there would be a strong case that the intent of the legislature was not to cover acts of the woman herself. (I suspect that few people would have envisioned this particular situation at the time of drafting.)

In this case, the judge would have ruled correctly.
 
Mycroft said:
No, I will not answer your question.

Possible crimes have already been listed in this thread and I could certainly add to the list. I will not, however, do so in response to your question as it seems unlikely that your goal is meaningful dialogue of any kind.

If you wish to participate, please offer your own opinions or respond with your thoughts on other opinions offered here. If you're truly curious as to what possible crimes I might list, feel free to follow the thread and maybe I will say something later.
Click to expand...

But why are you opening this thread, complaining that there was a crime, if you won't tell us what that crime is? What is it you want us to discuss?

If you can ask other people for their opinions, we can ask for yours. Or are you just trolling for other people's opinions, which you will then (try to) shoot down?
 
Katana said:
Yup.

This baby was old enough to survive on the outside. I have a hard time understanding why this is not murder.
Click to expand...
I agree it was murder. My only issue is how culpable she should be considered. It sounds to me like she may very well have been in some kind of state of diminished capacity. If she had been completely rational about her situation from the get-go, she would have had an abortion shortly after getting pregnant. Failing that, she would have had the baby and given it up for adoption. The option she chose was for what is, if not the worst possible outcome (dead baby, imprisoned mother), at least very close to it.

Think about it. I'm a single mom twice over already at the age of 22. You ask me, "What would you do if you got pregnant tomorrow?" I reply, "I think I'll carry it to term, then shoot it dead while I'm in labor."

Would you consider me to be fully in possession of my faculties?
 
BPSCG said:
I agree it was murder. My only issue is how culpable she should be considered. It sounds to me like she may very well have been in some kind of state of diminished capacity. If she had been completely rational about her situation from the get-go, she would have had an abortion shortly after getting pregnant. Failing that, she would have had the baby and given it up for adoption. The option she chose was for what is, if not the worst possible outcome (dead baby, imprisoned mother), at least very close to it.

Think about it. I'm a single mom twice over already at the age of 22. You ask me, "What would you do if you got pregnant tomorrow?" I reply, "I think I'll carry it to term, then shoot it dead while I'm in labor."

Would you consider me to be fully in possession of my faculties?
Click to expand...

Nope. You have a point-one that, if she is charged with murder, her lawyer will likely raise.
 
BPSCG said:
Think about it. I'm a single mom twice over already at the age of 22. You ask me, "What would you do if you got pregnant tomorrow?" I reply, "I think I'll carry it to term, then shoot it dead while I'm in labor."

Would you consider me to be fully in possession of my faculties?
Click to expand...

While I agree with your assessment in this case, I dislike your method as a general principle. How do you propose distinguishing stupid decisions from crazy decisions? (Or perhaps you're suggesting people should not be culpable for either? That runs against what I think I know of you.)

Aaron
 
drkitten said:
To my naive reading, that's a direct violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy.

Perhaps one of the members of the bar can explain to me why the State of Virginia gets two bites at the cherry?
Click to expand...

Not being a lawyer, my guess is that because it was dismissed by the judge (rather than her being found not guilty by a jury), bringing it back to trial may not violate double jeopardy, but it may require another judge to basically overrule the dismissal in order to happen.
 
HeavyAaron said:
While I agree with your assessment in this case, I dislike your method as a general principle. How do you propose distinguishing stupid decisions from crazy decisions? (Or perhaps you're suggesting people should not be culpable for either? That runs against what I think I know of you.)

Aaron
Click to expand...

I'm not a doctor, but I don't think there's a safe way to shoot one's self in the abdomen. The incredible risks she took probably can be used to make a strong case that she wasn't in command of her faculties.
 
CFLarsen said:
I'm asking Mycroft.

I really can't see why he has such a hard time coming out and just say what it is he wants to argue.
Click to expand...

I think the rest of us are wondering why you are focusing on something that we understood from the beginning. Somehow we all picked up on murder being the crime, and the discussion has moved along. Why do you belabor the obvious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom