An Indiana woman tried to kill herself by eating rat poison while she was 30 weeks pregnant. She lived, but her baby was born and soon died. She is being tried for murder. Juror, how do you decide?
things it seems like it could be feasible that she would be charged with that as opposed to murder or manslaughter.
certainty to have caused the woman to go in to labor prematurely, do you think she could be tried for (not necessarily found guilty, just charged with & tried) causing an abortion?
It doesn't carry nearly as harsh of a punishment than murder or even manslaughter, I think, but based on how you see…
Hey Rand, I'm curious about your take on something. In many states (most? All?) causing an unnatural abortion is a crime, whether you cause someone else to have that abortion or yourself.
If (I haven't actually looked it up) Indiana has such laws, and if the rat poison can be proved with reasonable…
Wrong. The child was born suffering from the effects of poison. The poison killed the child. The mother administered the poison. The mother is responsible for having caused the death of the child. The mother is guilty of premeditated murder.
The father apparently had no say in the issue. That's besides the fact that only the mother had the ability to kill the infant and not herself at that point.
No form of abortio is acceptable at ANY time. Have you seen the Silent Scream? I guarantee that you would be horrified. Look it up. True story.
You must be a pretty terrible person not to think that a baby born alive is not a human being.
If this is an issue then how is abortion NOT murder?!?!
The baby WAS born. Lived for a few days.
The child lived for three days, the mother left a suicide note stating that she was killing herself and the child to spite the father of the child, who had recently broke up with her.
The baby was born alive, and died three days later from rat poisoning. Guilty!
And what about justice for the child she murdered?
Where did this note come from? Or, did I miss something? There is not nearly enlightened backstory to make a legitimate decision from the question. Abortion is abortion, to me the question is do you support it or not.
Its okay she killed her baby, she wasnt feeling very good that day. . . . . WHAT?!
Not nearly enough info to make this decision.
She committed murder but I would say not guilty by reason of insanity. If her lawyer didn't plead insanity then she has a bad lawyer.
She should only be tried under any laws covering attempted suicide. The unborn are not people and therefore their death is not murder.
My initial reaction is compassion for her (mother's) suffering. I worry she was terribly depressed, felt hopeless with little support needed to make a more healthy choice. I pray that all people in despair can find hope as we retain the humanism required to seek opportunities to care for others.
Oh stop it! There is no evidence that the murderer is mentally deficient. There is clear evidence that she brutally killed her baby. Where's your sympathy for the only real victim in this case?
....so can we please try to remain civil and stick to the subject?
Why are such stupid, insensitive comments about such a serious issue being made? You are taking a mental health issue and turning it into your own " let's trash women's rights". This is not a joke. The real issue has nothing to do with abortion rights, which last I heard was legal in the U.S.,
The status of the child was that it was born with a defective system. By your rationale, you will have to jail every woman in America who's child is born with any ailment whatsoever.
The key is the status of the child at the time of death. The cause of birth is clear, as is the cause of death. The mother is responsible for the death.
WHEN did the mother administer the poison? Before or after the child was born? Prior to birth, there was no "child" but a growth inside of the woman. If the woman (who became a mother only after its birth) administered the poison postpartum, then I'd agree with you.
Rand ... by attempting to shift this from the horrific murder of a defenseless child to name-calling of regular law abiding citizens concerned about taxes is a desperately pathetic attempt to change the subject because your argument is nonsense.
Not surprisingly, you resort to nonsensical personal attacks because your arguments are impotent. The child lived outside the womb. The child died of poisoning administered by his mother. She admitted to administering it. I assert we should protect the child, even if from his mother.
And of course your party has a social agenda. Why couldn't your candidates shut up about rape and their hated of women, gays, and non whites during the fall campaign? Especially if its only about "responsible spending"
Grow a brain you Neanderthal!
Here's the thing. Is the death of the three day old child a sad thing? Of course it is. But there is NO LEGAL basis for punishing the mother. On a jury, you HAVE to follow the law, not whatever you wish the outcome to be. That's the start of mob rule and anarchy.
Proud to call yourself a member of the most radical obstructionist collection of billionaires whores the nation has ever seen?
So you're concerned with the "preborn" but F 'em once their out of the womb? And I'M the heartless monster? Great way to build a society. Idiot.
The tea party is a lobbying group bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot who ignores reality
What human child? Again, as the organism wasn't born, it wasn't a human. Ignoring basic law doesn't change it.
Susan ... You deny the facts. In this case an unborn child was not the one murdered. The victim was a three day old human child. The cause of death was poisoning.
The note found by the police proves the woman's premeditated intent to kill the child to spite the father.
Baby killers strip the choice from the most vulnerable among us, and side with selfish irresponsible women who feel that they have every right to be promiscuous and then not deal with the consequences.
Pro-choice is a misnomer.
She must value rats over humans.
Rand ... You willfully deny the facts. A human child died. That child was poisoned by his mother. The motive of the mother was to kill the child to spite the father.
Rand ... you're proud of yourself with what you thought was a derogatory label, but I proudly align with the Tea Party. This in spite of the lies perpetrated about the org by the left. You lied when you suggested that the Tea Party has a position on life. It's all about responsible spending.
And judge we must, as this women chose to act. She concluded that she could exact the maximum amount of revenge against the father of the child by killing herself AND the baby. And to make sure that he knew she knew what she was doing, she wrote a note to make sure her death spoke loudest to him.
Emo ... Better yet, lets let the murderer get away with the crime so she'll feel better about Herself.
EMomma - Yes, what Annie says. I have no "30 weeks & 3 days rule" - I just meant the fetus was well past the time limit for elective abortions except for the most extraordinary of circumstances, & that the baby was apparently healthy enough to have survived outside the womb (except for the poison).
Annie -Exactly my thoughts only better expressed than i could do -thanks!
She saved the rats' lives!!!
or even seriously considered it that thoroughly researched the best, most efficient and most painless way to go about it. They all went with what was handy, the first thing that popped in to their heads or they sometimes didn't even think with much, if any, forethought and simply acted.
Thank you, OMG. I've been very frustrated as I've read these comments with the idea some seem to have that a mentally ill woman would have been rational, calculated, and would have planned how to kill herself right down to how it would affect the baby.
I've never known anyone that attempted suicide…
That is a huge legal distinction and probably a huge reason the woman was charged with murder, not with committing an illegal abortion or some other legally lesser crime.
medically a baby that is born and lives outside of the mother's womb for any amount of time is, in fact, a person. He/she is independent from the mother at that point & medically changes from being a "fetus" to being an "infant."
This particular baby lived for three days indepentent from its mother.
Two, the woman's goal was not an abortion, it was suicide, therefore it is reasonable to assume that she would not have sought an abortion at any point in her pregnancy even if she'd been able to.
Third, it isn't a "three day rule." In the law (though I'm unclear on the specifics in this case) and…
EMomma- It's not a distinction Susan has made arbitrarily herself. It's a distinction the law makes.
As far as I could find last time I looked, all states mark the cut-off of legal abortions except in rare, extreme cases at 20-24 weeks. An abortion at 31 weeks would have been illegal. …
I know! Lets kill a suicidal person. I bet that will teach her a lesson. /sarcasm
Abortion is preformed by a medical professional in a sterile environment. A pregnant lady trying to kill herself is not an abortion. Don't be an idiot.
This epitomizes the fallacy of the pro-choicers mind set...child here dies after being born is murder...if child would have died before being born is her choice. Stupidity! Either way there is a DEAD CHILD!
So, we suspend the rule of law for pregnant women?