Posted on 03/01/2010 9:36:29 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
And if it's unlikely, it's very probably a prosecutor will not touch the case.
And even if such a thing were, as is unlikely, brought to court (going far out on a limb, say a woman were bragging in a bar that she would self-abort, and then miscarried after taking several dozen oh, I don't know, Zicams?) a jury would be unlikely to convict unless there were someone zealous enough to identify and bring in the people at the bar, the doctor who confirmed the pregnancy to begin with, the doctor who said, "Yup, 37 Zicams would do this," etc.)
Same problem with a dependent elder who, say, dies with 37 Zicams in their system. Was it the caregiver? Or not? Unless the caregiver said in public that "Great-grandmama is going to die, and pronto, because Zicam is all you need"---Who would know?
Absent very clear indicators of criminal abuse or criminal neglect, there would be no prosecution.
And the existence of hypothetical borderline cases does not constitute an argument against legislation designed to protect babies, great-grandmamas, and other vulnerable parties.
"There is definitely potential here for abuse. Does this mean the police will be investigating every child's death, to be sure they were accidental and not purposeful"
My point being that any law which makes it illegal to kill someone requires that deaths be investigated, to rule out deliberate acts of murder. If your child drowns in a pool, the police will investigate to make sure it was an accident. If a baby stops breathing in the middle of the night, they will investigate to make sure you didn't suffocate the child, or shake the child.
And yes, those who have just suffered an accidental death will be inconvenienced by these investigations, and hurt by them, but that is the price we pay for keeping people from killing their children.
So, how do you tell the difference between a woman who is assaulted and loses her baby, and a woman who convinces another person to assault her to kill her baby? You investigate.
And how do you tell if an 8-month-old fetus miscarriage is caused by a deliberate act, or is simply an accident? You would have to investigate. I presume a doctor or coronor would be the first gatekeeper.
The interesting question to me is what obligation a woman has to take a certain degree of care when pregnant. I can't tell whether the law requires any special care by the mother, other than to not deliberately take an action that would be expected to result in the death of the child.
It is often true that people who profess to be strongly pro-life still refuse to treat the death of a fetus with the same level of concern as the death of a two-year-old. When we see a mother treating her infant child recklessly, as with Brittney Spears (or a father like Michael Jackson), we are outraged, and expect the law to take action.
“None Dare Call it Slavery.”
Indeed. The usual idiots are out in force to kill this.
“Government is the solution to all problems, even if there is no problem.”
So the fact that there are a million children killed every year is not a problem? I would rather they spent money closing down the clinics and going after the doctors, than whatever they spend money on. We need these kids and killing them is going to be the downfall of American society.
I presume the deaths of preborns would be investigated about like the deaths of the post-born are. A lot more post-born people die every year than pre-born, and we manage to investigate the suspicious deaths without overly taxing our criminal justice system.
From the statements of others, it sounds like investigations would be triggered by a some obvious indication of wrong-doing, not simply by the death of a pre-born.
I’m saying that the bill is trying to prevent abortions. Saying that its targetting miscarriages is dishonest.
Why do you think this law is any more open than any other law about murder? Do you think the language talking about not being allowed to kill people is written to specifically preclude investigations of every death?
As I said before. If we really want to treat the pre-born as people, just the same as the after-born, we can’t also expect that the death of the pre-born should be investigated any less than the death of the already born, simply because there are more preborn deaths.
Actions don’t become different retroactively because of how the person who did them felt at the time.
“Actions don’t become different retroactively because of how the person who did them felt at the time.”
“Felt”, I would agree with. However, the truth of “non compos mentis” insanity, is that there is little or no doubt even by a layman that someone is “not in command of their faculties”. And this *is* satisfactory to most people that during these times they have little or no control over themselves, so should not be held entirely to blame for their actions.
I could cite several very dramatic examples, such as advanced pernicious anemia, caused by the inability to absorb Vitamin B12. There are many cases where a frothing, incoherent maniac in a straight jacket, and tied to a bed, when given an injection of B12 would, within one minute, return to complete clarity, sanity, along with some confusion as to where they were, and why?
But in the final analysis, whether a person is permanently or just temporarily insane, they need professional evaluation to determine if there is any degree of mitigation for their actions in that mental state.
Have you heard of PMS?
That’s an interesting case, first of all because it is periodic, that is, if a woman claims to have been temporarily insane because of PMS, then he blood hormone and neurotransmitter levels can be measured the following month. Eventually, this may become the legal standard, for this little used excuse.
To be adjudged temporarily insane, by a clinical standard, hormones and neurochemicals have to be severely off the norm, so much so that little subjectivity would be involved.
In the case of PMS, it is known to specifically affect the brain chemical serotonin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin
Most serotonin is used in the gut, but that part in the CNS has various functions, including the regulation of mood, appetite, sleep, muscle contraction, and some cognitive functions including memory and learning.
If your serotonin levels are way off, you know it.
However, this is very different from “The Twinkie Defense”, in which *subjectively* courts have determined temporary insanity, which I agree is nonsense, except perhaps under such severe emotional stress that anyone would be expected to lose their sense, such as seeing a family member at extreme risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.