Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t a Person

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,966
Reaction score
2,154
Jorgensen was in her third trimester when the car accident occurred in May 2008. Her daughter was delivered by C-section after the head-on collision and died six days later, according to the report.
Click to expand...

So, very misleading headline. She didn't kill a 6 day old baby. The fetus was not yet born when the accident happened.

Still, there is plenty she should be charged with. And, honestly, drug crimes should be harsher when pregnant... I'm not sure any rational people could argue against that one. But trying to backdoor that by charging her the way they did isn't the way to do it.
 
ilwrath said:
So, very misleading headline. She didn't kill a 6 day old baby. The fetus was not yet born when the accident happened.

Still, there is plenty she should be charged with. And, honestly, drug crimes should be harsher when pregnant... I'm not sure any rational people could argue against that one. But trying to backdoor that by charging her the way they did isn't the way to do it.
Click to expand...

If a man assaults a pregnant woman and the baby dies, he is charged with MURDER. Do you want to change this so the man is only charged with simple battery?
 
Jim,

You do realize this is your subject, right?. The one subject (that everyone has) where you have absolutely no ability to be objective. As such, while it's an interesting article, it -- like gun control for @ltstanfo, or Trump for @cecilia -- simply isn't one we can legitimately debate with you for fear of either running you off, or making an "enemy"...

All said in love buddy...

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
Jim,

You do realize this is your subject, right?. The one subject (that everyone has) where you have absolutely no ability to be objective. As such, while it's an interesting article, it -- like gun control for @ltstanfo, or Trump for @cecilia -- simply isn't one we can legitimately debate with you for fear of either running you off, or making an "enemy"...

All said in love buddy...

Wayne
Click to expand...

I can have a calm conversation as long as you don't decide to resort to slanderous personal insults.

Do you think it is OK for a guy to assault a women resulting in the unborn baby's death and he gets charged with murder? But a woman causes the death of her full term baby, after the baby is been born for 6 days, and it is ruled an abortion?

BTW on the larger subject of abortion, "pro-choice" people do tend to want to shut down the conversation because they know science is not on their side.
 
redrumloa said:
But a woman causes the death of her full term baby, after the baby is been born for 6 days, and it is ruled an abortion?
Click to expand...

But it wasn't a six day old baby when the accident happened. It was an unborn fetus. When you start calling things things they aren't, it all goes wrong.

(And, by the way, yes, I'd also believe that murder would be the wrong charge for the theoretical assailant, as well. Not saying that isn't a horrific crime. Not saying it isn't more than simple assult. Saying it doesn't properly fit definition of murder.)
 
redrumloa said:
If a man assaults a pregnant woman and the baby dies, he is charged with MURDER.
Click to expand...
This is not generally true. For instance, in your home state of Florida, you are only charged with murder if the act of killing was both intentional and premeditated.
 
ilwrath said:
But it wasn't a six day old baby when the accident happened. It was an unborn fetus. When you start calling things things they aren't, it all goes wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually that is THE point. The baby was a fully viable human being when the accident happened, thus the C-section. The baby would have survived if not the accident caused by the criminal actions of the mother. A third trimester baby is a baby, not a fetus. A baby could be delivered by C-section at any point during the 3rd trimester and likely live.

ilwrath said:
(And, by the way, yes, I'd also believe that murder would be the wrong charge for the theoretical assailant, as well. Not saying that isn't a horrific crime. Not saying it isn't more than simple assult. Saying it doesn't properly fit definition of murder.)
Click to expand...

Well we certainly need consistency in the laws. If the laws state an unborn baby is just "a lump of flesh" and decision to keep the child is purely cosmetic by the mother, then ALL laws need to reflect this. A woman has "the right to chose", then the father "has the right to chose" if he wants to be a supporting father. Equality between the sexes should be equality, not one being more equal than the other. A man can't decide if he wants that burden or not?

In the main subject, I do think a guy assaulting a pregnant women resulting in the baby's death should be charged with murder. This woman should be charged with manslaughter. But again, we need consistency in the law.
 
Last edited:
Jim,

When the accident occurred, the baby had not been born. Before birth, legally speaking, it's a fetus, not a living, breathing child. Even though the sensationalist headline reads differently, it's not as though they extracted the child and the mother walked into the room with a mad grin wielding a pillow.

There is also the difference in intent. If they're going to let Hillary's felonies go based on intent, then I'm compelled to point out that an assault which kills the mother and child is (usually) an intentional act. One of negligence and/or addiction (as in this case) shows no direct intent.

We can argue semantics all day long, but doing so rarely proves to be productive. I could no further convince you to see things from another perspective, than you can convince me that yours is the "right" one...

I do agree however about the need for consistency, but apparently law in the US has been dwindled to "intent"...

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top