61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Man what is up with Indiana recently?
http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus
Short Version: Indian woman has a miscarriage and seeks medical treatment, ends up doing 20 years. Damn it's like every horror story from the pro-choice people come true.
47598
Post by: motyak
I can only hope it's an incredibly dark April Fools joke?
514
Post by: Orlanth
What is the termination limit in the US.
Over here if a child is aborted post a 24 weeks it is considered murder, unless the health of the mother is a at stake.
This has long been considered a reasonable compromise.
However a miscarriage is not an abortion, for this case to make any sense the court must have decided it was an induced abortion.
However was this a miscarriage, or a premature birth. If it was a miscarriage no crime was committed. The defendant claimed to have had a miscarriage but the court has considered it a premature birth and subsequent neglect.
The article is missing something.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It's also quite amazing that she was charged with, and found guilty of, two separate crimes that aren't really compatible.
She was charged and convicted of killing a fetus, and she was also charged and convicted of neglecting an infant.
Either she killed the fetus and never delivered an infant, or she neglected an infant after it was born and therefore didn't kill a fetus.
That state is making Oklahoma look better every day 
65916
Post by: mitch_rifle
It's being discussed on reddit, apparently she self aborted and dumped it in a rubbish bin or something i dunno but whatever evidence it was and the circumstances jury decided to prosecute or however it wworks
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
A miscarriage is not an abortion.
241
Post by: Ahtman
According to the NBC story the prosecutors are saying the baby wasn't stillborn, and that it was alive and she threw it into the dumpster where it eventually perished. That is how you end up with neglect and killing a fetus.
This apparently happened sometime in 2013 but is now making the rounds on the news.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
She was just sentenced I believe. If the baby was alive and viable, it wouldn't be killing a fetus, it would be killing a baby, which would just be murder.
However I did skim reddit and the top comment has some valuable information.
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/30yu7e/indianapolis_first_woman_in_us_sentenced_for/
On June 10, Patel text messaged her friend about ordering abortion pills from an “international pharmacy,” and when the friend asked Patel three more times to see a doctor, she replied, “I’d rather not even go to a doc. I just want to get this over with,” Herring said.
Then on July 13, Patel text messaged her friend, “Just lost the baby. I’m gonna clean up the bathroom and then go to Moe’s.” Note: Moe's is the name of the restaurant her parents own. Also, THIS TEXT WAS SENT THE DAY BEFORE SHE WENT TO THE HOSPITAL.
That’s where investigators have said they ultimately found the baby, in a dumpster, wrapped in plastic bags.
Her friend also repeatedly urged her to go to a doctor starting in April, but she refused. I think this adds a layer to the conversation and wanted to mention it because these these text message were not mentioned in this article or many of the other articles I've read within the past few days. Only our local media seems to have actually shared the content of these text messages. I suspect they are a major reason why the jury chose to convict.
So I'll eat an appetizer of crow at least.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-25 defines serious bodily injury as bodily injury that causes the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-3 defines voluntary manslaughter as a person who knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability while acting under sudden heat and provides penalties.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-4 defines involuntary manslaughter to include a person who kills a fetus that has attained viability while committing or attempting to commit specified felonies that pose a risk of serious bodily injury, specified misdemeanors that pose a risk of serious bodily injury or battery. The law was amended in 2010 by Ind. Acts, P.L. 7 (SB 71) to include a violation of Ind. Code Ann. 9-30-5-1 et seq., which define operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The law refers to Ind. Code Ann. § 16-18-2-365, which defines viability as the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's womb.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-6 specifies that a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide; the law does not apply to an abortion. The law was amended in 2009 to change feticide from a Class C to a Class B felony. (2009 Ind. Acts, P.L. 40, SB 236)
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1.5 defines aggravated battery as a person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that causes the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-9(b)(16) allows the state to seek either a death sentence or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for murder by alleging the victim of the murder was pregnant and the murder resulted in the intentional killing of a fetus that has attained viability.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-16 (2009) allows the state to seek an additional fixed term of imprisonment if a person, while committing or attempting to commit murder, caused the termination of a pregnancy. Prosecution of the murder or attempted murder and the enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant or that the defendant intended to cause the termination of a pregnancy. The additional consecutive term of imprisonment may be between six and 20 years. (2009 Ind. Acts, P.L. 40, SB 236)
There is no law against having a miscarriage.
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Patel-child-neglect-sentencing-pushed-back-295224821.html
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. -- The sentencing of Purvi Patel, who was charged with child neglect, has been pushed back to later in March.
Purvi Patel, 33, made headlines back in July 2013 when her baby's body was found in a dumpster.
She was convicted of using abortion drugs she bought online without a prescription to terminate a secret pregnancy.
But a drug designed to deal with a fetus the "size of a jellybean" didn't work at her advanced stage of pregnancy.
The child neglect charge carries a maximum of 50 years behind bars. The feticide charge carries a maximum of 20 years.
Neither has a mandatory minimum sentence.
The sentencing is expected to take place on March 30.
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Purvi-Patel-sentencing-set-for-Monday-297949321.html
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. -- Since her dead newborn baby was found in a Mishawaka dumpster in July of 2013, Purvi Patel has been out on bond.
Today, she was taken into custody and ordered to start serving a 20 year executed sentence on child neglect and feticide charges.
In this case, prison was an option, but not a requirement.
While the defense argued for home detention or community corrections, prosecutors warned that would diminish the seriousness of the crime and the age of the victim. “All cases involving child victims are challenging,” said Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule after today’s sentencing hearing. “I have been, I’m in my 13th year. There are obviously officers that have been doing it a lot longer and the cases with children and particularly the cases with babies are the ones that people remember. They’re the ones that may wake you up in the middle of the night.”
Patel had no criminal history and she lives with, and cares for her parents and infirm grandparents in Granger. Still, the State of Indiana imposes regulations on abortions and it was argued that Patel ignored them for all the wrong reasons.
“You know she lived in a nice home. Had a Cadillac SRX vehicle, so she was not an indigent person who could not afford medical care,” said Roule.
Yet Patel never went to a doctor about a pregnancy she tried to keep to herself, and tried to end by herself with prescription abortion drugs she purchased off the internet.
When that attempted abortion instead resulted in a live birth, Patel “treated the child, literally, as a piece of trash,” said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley, who said Patel had “abused her position of trust.”
No one is condoning what happened. No one’s condoning the actions, the dumpster and that,” said Rev. Marie Siroky who attended today’s hearing. “But I think the other part you heard from the judge and from the prosecutor, what they said, they felt she ‘was thinking,’ no one knows what anybody is thinking.”
Rev. Siroky thinks the Patel case sends a dangerous message at a time when the availability of abortion pills has increased on the internet, and the number of abortion clinics in Indiana keeps dwindling. “And we may be very close to getting only two abortion clinics in the state, or in two cities, Indianapolis and Bloomington. Long waiting periods, this is a set up for this to happen.”
Sue Ellen Braunlin is with the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice who has been closely watching the Patel case. She claims it marks just the second time in Indiana history that a law written to protect pregnant women from third party violence, has been used to prosecute women trying to abort. “The expanded application of the feticide laws, it will go on to criminalize women who have problems with their pregnancy or who intend to end their pregnancy on their own.”
Judge Hurley actually sentenced Patel to 30 years on the child neglect charge and six years on the Feticide count. Both sentences will run concurrently. 10 years of the child neglect sentence was suspended, and five years of probation added to the mix. Patel’s effective sentence of 20 years will be served under a set of old guidelines that allow for one day’s worth of good time credit for each day served. That means Patel’s time behind bars could be trimmed to as little as 10 years.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
So will she get a plea deal requiring sterilization?
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Damn, the U.S. are weird. Would anyone here defend this sentence?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
When that attempted abortion instead resulted in a live birth, Patel “treated the child, literally, as a piece of trash,” said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley, who said Patel had “abused her position of trust.”
That is not a miscarriage, that's actual murder.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Orlanth wrote:What is the termination limit in the US.
Over here if a child is aborted post a 24 weeks it is considered murder, unless the health of the mother is a at stake.
This has long been considered a reasonable compromise.
However a miscarriage is not an abortion, for this case to make any sense the court must have decided it was an induced abortion.
However was this a miscarriage, or a premature birth. If it was a miscarriage no crime was committed. The defendant claimed to have had a miscarriage but the court has considered it a premature birth and subsequent neglect.
The article is missing something.
In Indiana its evidently 25 weeks (6 months) and she tripped that.
So she had a baby and dumped it in the dumpster. Mmm.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?
37231
Post by: d-usa
My main problem is the fact that she is guilty of neglecting a living breathing infant after it was born even though she had also already killed it while it was still a fetus.
Maybe the law is just really crappy at using medical terminology, but this seems like something that isn't possible.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 d-usa wrote:My main problem is the fact that she is guilty of neglecting a living breathing infant after it was born even though she had also already killed it while it was still a fetus.
Maybe the law is just really crappy at using medical terminology, but this seems like something that isn't possible.
That's a quarrel with the law v medical terminology, not the sentence.
It sounds as though this is the law she was charged under;
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-6 specifies that a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide
So the intention is what matters, not whether it was successful. So it is possible to be charged with feticide when a live birth still occurs
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar46/ch1.html
Sec. 4. (a) A person having the care of a dependent, whether assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation, who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health;
(2) abandons or cruelly confines the dependent;
(3) deprives the dependent of necessary support; or
(4) deprives the dependent of education as required by law;
commits neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony.
So the sentence is correct under the law as written
42144
Post by: cincydooley
It could be worse. Could be Colorado:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-baby-not-alive-20150327-story.html
Hits particularly close to home for me, as my 7 month old was born a month early.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
92153
Post by: KaptinBadrukk
WTF???
Miscarriage is not illegal.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Neither is reading what actually happened.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
That is correct, a miscarriage by itself is not illegal. This was not a simple miscarriage. The lady in question ingested medication with the intent to cause an abortion. The fetus was too well developed for the drugs to work. Instead it caused her to give birth prematurely, to a live baby. This baby was then thrown in a dumpster. To claim that this lady was convicted for a miscarriage is wholly disingenuous
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh Snap! Automatically Appended Next Post:  Xenomancers wrote:In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
I'm trying to get certain provisions added that permit them retroactively for special people that tick me off, for instance people who like cats.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Xenomancers wrote:In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
Thanks for the useful and insightful commentary.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Dear God, man do you also send your SS# and bank account info to African princes in exile!?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 cincydooley wrote: Xenomancers wrote:In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
Thanks for the useful and insightful commentary.
Sorry I just get real offended when people oppress my religious freedom.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.
4402
Post by: CptJake
How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?
What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Frazzled wrote:
Oh Snap!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote:In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
I'm trying to get certain provisions added that permit them retroactively for special people that tick me off, for instance people who like cats.
Cats are the most noble creatures on earth!
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 CptJake wrote:Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
Yes.
34390
Post by: whembly
April fools?
50326
Post by: curran12
I just hope I'm missing something here.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.
That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Chongara wrote:Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime. That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.
It depends on the drug she allegedly used and what specifically they were screening her... I have my doubts still about the veracity of the evidence still...
50326
Post by: curran12
There's a whole lot of unanswered questions in this case. And a headline/forum title that are terrible at actually making a place where those questions can be answered.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Chongara wrote:Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.
That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.
The defense team had as much say as to the make up of the jury as did the prosecutorial team. You bring this type of a case to trial, the defense knows up front their client is going to be painted as a monster. They failed to induce a reasonable doubt into the jury. That is the way our system works.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
^ directly from the article...
Investigation turns up 0 drugs...reasonable to assume there was no drugs...no evidence of drugs means she isn't guilty of anything. This is gonna get appealed so hard with national attention.
Indiana again proving that it is the Georgia of the northeast.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Xenomancers wrote:Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
^ directly from the article...
Investigation turns up 0 drugs...reasonable to assume there was no drugs...no evidence of drugs means she isn't guilty of anything. As she should.
Indiana again proving that it is the Georgia of the northeast.
Well, one would assume that the court had access to the autopsy report on the foetus and that that report should answer the question whether it was a stillborn or an actual living baby.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.
Starting to think you didn't read the article. The article states.
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Xenomancers wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Oh Snap!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote:In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.
I'm trying to get certain provisions added that permit them retroactively for special people that tick me off, for instance people who like cats.
Cats are the most noble creatures on earth!
You're on the list!
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Asking what part of the sentence you were having difficulty with =/= defending the sentence.
So what part of the law was incorrectly applied? What do you feel about the law was unjust, or somehow not deserving of the punishment?
What sentence do you propose for someone who attempted to induce an abortion, gave birth to an infant three months premature, then discarded the infant in a dumpster to die?
25990
Post by: Chongara
CptJake wrote: Chongara wrote:Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.
That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.
The defense team had as much say as to the make up of the jury as did the prosecutorial team. You bring this type of a case to trial, the defense knows up front their client is going to be painted as a monster. They failed to induce a reasonable doubt into the jury. That is the way our system works.
I don't think that's a healthy way to look at things. The most important word in your entire post is "Reasonable". They may have failed to make the jurors feel doubt, but nothing about a lack of doubt is inherently reasonable or unreasonable. If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though", it may mean a jury's lack of doubt wasn't reasonable. "Reasonable" has to be an external standard otherwise convictions on the basis of the jury deciding "We don't like people who wear yellow shirts! They must be murderers! He wore a yellow shirt, this is slam dunk case!" would be valid.
Jurors are human and can make mistakes or just be outright biased, or even willfully unfair. The fact it's "The way our system works" means that... OK this conviction was definitely conducted in procedurally valid way. However, if the prosecution just went up did nothing but wave a bunch pictures of dead fetus until the people's emotions were stirred up they made decision with no basis in fact, something bad has happened. Justice hasn't happened, the truth hasn't won out. Call me an idealist but those are all things that when the process works correctly are actually done.
We weren't in the courtroom, we don't have the facts. Maybe they had really good physical evidence from corpse that made it improbable it was born anything but alive and lived long enough she could have called for medical attention. If so, then this is probably a good conviction. I certainly hope that's the case.
However, the narrative that has been presented to me makes it hard to feel a ton confidence in that. Especially knowing how likely people are to ignore facts with things involving children generally, never mind a case where one was potentially thrown in a dumpster.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Xenomancers wrote:Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
I'm working on the assumption here that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as that is the criminal standard. Otherwise the case gets thrown out by the judge.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Xenomancers wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.
Starting to think you didn't read the article. The article states.
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
Nothing in my post indicated an opinion about the validity of the prosecution's claims. The prosecution isn't claiming that she had a miscarriage at all.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:Asking what part of the sentence you were having difficulty with =/= defending the sentence.
You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:What sentence do you propose for someone who attempted to induce an abortion, gave birth to an infant three months premature, then discarded the infant in a dumpster to die?
Access to more efficient abortion methods?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional? Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way was the jury bigoted?
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
That is definitely what she should have used, though. Dreadclaw69 wrote:She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time.
And why so? Certainly not because she liked the taste of baby dumplings, she did not even put them in a fridge like a civilized person.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Chongara wrote:
I don't think that's a healthy way to look at things. The most important word in your entire post is "Reasonable". They may have failed to make the jurors feel doubt, but nothing about a lack of doubt is inherently reasonable or unreasonable. If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though", it may mean a jury's lack of doubt wasn't reasonable. "Reasonable" has to be an external standard otherwise convictions on the basis of the jury deciding "We don't like people who wear yellow shirts! They must be murderers! He wore a yellow shirt, this is slam dunk case!" would be valid.
Jurors are human and can make mistakes or just be outright biased, or even willfully unfair. The fact it's "The way our system works" means that... OK this conviction was definitely conducted in procedurally valid way. However, if the prosecution just went up did nothing but wave a bunch pictures of dead fetus until the people's emotions were stirred up they made decision with no basis in fact, something bad has happened. Justice hasn't happened, the truth hasn't won out. Call me an idealist but those are all things that when the process works correctly are actually done.
We weren't in the courtroom, we don't have the facts. Maybe they had really good physical evidence from corpse that made it improbable it was born anything but alive and lived long enough she could have called for medical attention. If so, then this is probably a good conviction. I certainly hope that's the case.
However, the narrative that has been presented to me makes it hard to feel a ton confidence in that. Especially knowing how likely people are to ignore facts with things involving children generally, never mind a case where one was potentially thrown in a dumpster.
And one of the most important parts of what you typed was " If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though""
Clearly, the jurors chosen/accepted by both the defense and the prosecutor did not see holes you could drive a truck through in the case. In fact, they did not see holes big enough for reasonable doubt (because that IS the legal standard, like it or not) to pour through. You may get a juror or two that hate people in yellow shirts. Getting a whole jury to go with that isn't gonna happen if the defense is half way competent and the judge does his/her job correctly. So either you feel the system is completely broken, or (as I do) accept that the prosecutor presented a much more believable case than the defense, and that when the elements of the law were explained by the judge, the full jury debated those elements as they applied to what evidence had been presented and came up with their verdict.
I think you may have been more accurate to state " Hey. There holes in the reporting of this story big enough to drive a truck though".
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?
Women aren't required to go to doctors when pregnant...so that's irrelevant. People tell me to go to the doctor all the time when I'm sick or in pain and I tell them to bugger off.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Xenomancers wrote:Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible.
Off topic:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.
It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I think that this conversation has reached its natural conclusion.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way was the jury bigoted?
Typically when the prosecution makes a claim like "she used drugs, but we can't prove it" a jury will not convict. Typically when the prosecution fails to support their claims with evidence - juries don't convict. If the evidence is bad and there is still a conviction there is only one conclusion that can be drawn - the jury is bad.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 AlexHolker wrote:Off topic:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.
It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.
I think they found it funny too.
And I am usually very lenient and friendly with them, so I am pretty sure if they had any real problem with it, they would have told me.
If they did not feel confident that they could tell me if I did something wrong, that is what I would like to fix.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlexHolker wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible.
Off topic:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.
It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.
Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Xenomancers wrote:
Typically when the prosecution makes a claim like "she used drugs, but we can't prove it" a jury will not convict. Typically when the prosecution fails to support their claims with evidence - juries don't convict. If the evidence is bad and there is still a conviction there is only one conclusion that can be drawn - the jury is bad.
You said bigoted, not bad. How was the jury bigoted?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Xenomancers wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.
Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:
Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.
You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.
I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
CptJake wrote: Xenomancers wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.
Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:
Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.
You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.
I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.
It's a Slate article.
They present the full facts and both sides of an issue about as often as FoxNews or MSNBC.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Xenomancers wrote:
Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.
Dr. Prentice Jones, Jr., of the South Bend Medical Foundation, testified on Thursday, Jan. 29, that he couldn’t find any accepted method to test blood for the particular drugs Patel allegedly used,
Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
CptJake wrote:
Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.
It's like the text messages speak to intent, or something? I dunno. Jack McCoy can only teach me so much.
34390
Post by: whembly
Xenomancers wrote: AlexHolker wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system. The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.
Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible. Off topic: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.
It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.
Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.
Again... depends on the medication. One common one that she may use would be: Cytotec, which by the time the authorities is able to draw samples from her, it's not detectable. There's other ways via hormone overload, and if pro-athletes would know, those aren't as detectable as you'd think. These discussions is kind of moot without seeing the court documents. Does anyone know if they're made public yet?
4402
Post by: CptJake
cincydooley wrote: CptJake wrote:
Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.
It's like the text messages speak to intent, or something? I dunno. Jack McCoy can only teach me so much.
More than intent in this case, she claimed the pills tasted like gak in a text to her friend.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
CptJake wrote:More than intent in this case, she claimed the pills tasted like gak in a text to her friend.
Self incrimination, making the prosecution's job easy since time immemorial Automatically Appended Next Post:  whembly wrote:Again... depends on the medication. One common one that she may use would be:
Cytotec, which by the time the authorities is able to draw samples from her, it's not detectable.
There's other ways via hormone overload, and if pro-athletes would know, those aren't as detectable as you'd think.
These discussions is kind of moot without seeing the court documents. Does anyone know if they're made public yet?
Not yet, but those are something I am interested in reading, and may do something to alleviate the signal to noise ratio
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
CptJake wrote: Xenomancers wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.
Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:
Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.
You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.
I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.
I'd really like to know that too in regards to the defense. I also didn't read that far cause I'm at work. All that stuff sounds pretty convincing though...I will have to read more.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Xenomancers wrote:
I'd really like to know that too in regards to the defense. I also didn't read that far cause I'm at work. All that stuff sounds pretty convincing though...I will have to read more.
So you bring the article up, make an inflammatory comment based on it, and then admit you didn't even read the whole thing?
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
CptJake wrote:
How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?
What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
It seems like there must be a large psychological component to her crime. I would prefer to see her committed to long term psychological care rather than prison. And oddly enough, I think smothering a three year old is much worse because a person would have to overcome several mental barriers to murder a talking child slowly than to discard a newborn they have not formed any attachment to. Not saying killing a newborn is fine or even a mild crime, but I would think it would be 'easier' for the perpetrator than killing a much less passive child with a developed ability to communicate.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 BobtheInquisitor wrote: CptJake wrote: How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable? What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
It seems like there must be a large psychological component to her crime. I would prefer to see her committed to long term psychological care rather than prison. And oddly enough, I think smothering a three year old is much worse because a person would have to overcome several mental barriers to murder a talking child slowly than to discard a newborn they have not formed any attachment to. Not saying killing a newborn is fine or even a mild crime, but I would think it would be 'easier' for the perpetrator than killing a much less passive child with a developed ability to communicate.
I'll play Devil's Advocate with this one, if you don't mind. So, dumping a new born into a dumpster is not as bad (and assumedly should net you a shorter sentence) than smothering your 3 year old. But what if it isn't your 3 year old, what if it is some 3 year old you don't know and are not attached/bonded to? Do we then go with the lighter sentence in that case because it is the killing of a kid you are bonded to that is more wrong? The (probably not very well made) point is, either killing a child is wrong in the eyes of the law, or it is not. The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age. As for psych ward instead of prison? I'm not for that. I'm for psych help while in prison,but believe the punishment component of prison is a good thing.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or not. I said killing the three year old, any three year old, would take more sinister intent because they can put up a fight, scream or beg. A newborn is unaware and almost passive enough for a person to mentally categorize him or her as a nonhuman thing, like a pet. Not defending the killing of newborns, but explaining why I see murdering a three year old, particularly by smothering, as a more extreme act than discarding a newborn.
Killing a child is wrong, but there are various degrees of murder, and even manslaughter. Throwing a possibly-not-even-viable newborn in a dumpster takes less premeditation and malice than smothering a child who is likely screaming and thrashing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You edited your post. I'll recheck my reply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said committed for a reason. The psych ward of a prison would be fine. She comes across as unhinged rather than simply callous.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Lung float test...
Did they also check to see if the defendant weighs as much as a duck while they were at it?
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote:Lung float test...
Did they also check to see if the defendant weighs as much as a duck while they were at it?
That was not one of the tests listed in that article, but we don't have court records yet.
37772
Post by: Portugal Jones
The court phrenologist testified that she had the skull shape of a shamless murderess.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
CptJake wrote:The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.
The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: CptJake wrote:The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.
The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.
Or cut it from someone's stomach if you're in Colorado, apparently.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Cincy considering that woman can serve up to 170? or so years in prison... you'll have to elaborate.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
But who would do that? Who wants an already digested foetus? That would be like pre-digested dumplings!
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:Cincy considering that woman can serve up to 170? or so years in prison... you'll have to elaborate.
I just have a significant problem that she can't be charged for the murder of that infant. But that's a different thread.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: CptJake wrote:The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.
The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.
You are not understanding what I typed, nor seemingly how I attempted to apply it to this case. By 'age' I mean time outside of mommy, as in it was born and born alive. It would appear this one was chucked into a dumpster just minutes old. I was comparing that to a 3 year old in my example. It could have been born after a 9 month full term pregnancy, or as in this particular case, born prematurely.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: CptJake wrote:The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.
The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.
Or cut it from someone's stomach if you're in Colorado, apparently.
Although now the green bay police are saying you can use their parking lot for Craigslist transactions from that case.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Although now the green bay police are saying you can use their parking lot for Craigslist transactions from that case.
I don't think that's terribly uncommon. I know the fire station and police station in my township offer the same protections.
I think it's a good choice regardless.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Meeting for craigslist deals should always be in brightly lit, public spaces.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Even for those "massages" they offer on craigslist?
5470
Post by: sebster
The same sides will line up for and against abortion. Of course, both sides will claim the facts in this case will favour their own political point of view. Nothing will be achieved, of course, because the debate essentially can't be won, and it can't even really be compromised on.
But if anyone wants to actually look at how we might avoid these kinds of nasty situations in the future, just read this sentence from the opening article;
"Patel comes from a conservative Hindu family that looks down on sex outside marriage, and the pregnancy was a result of an affair Patel had with her co-worker."
No amount of public shame or moral disapproval stops people having sex. You just don't override basic biological imperatives. But the shame and secrecy leads to people taking unnecessary risks, especially pregnancy.
I don't think we can ever resolve the balance between women's rights and the protection of the unborn.... but we can certainly drastically cut the number of instances in which those issues clash, by breaking down these ridiculous sex taboos.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Well said Sebster.
I'm sure that this case was compounded by Indianan social taboos as well as by her upbringing and family life.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
That seems very, very arbitrary. Automatically Appended Next Post:  sebster wrote:No amount of public shame or moral disapproval stops people having sex.
Yeah, that is something I never understood, and that I just cannot wrap my head around.
I seem to do that well enough.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Why/How?
My birthday is the day I was born, not the day conceived. And in the context of what I was talking about, minutes old compared to 3 years old, it makes perfect sense and is not arbitrary at all.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Because I do not see any link between being outside of one's mother womb and it being okay to kill or not.
I am pretty sure the reason why it is okay to kill an early foetus is that we consider that it is not developed enough to have gain consciousness. And the time it takes before reaching consciousness will obviously be measured starting from conception, not when the baby is born. So, we usually count from being born because it is easier and the difference is negligible once the child reach 1/2 years. But before that, the difference matters.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Because I do not see any link between being outside of one's mother womb and it being okay to kill or not.
I am pretty sure the reason why it is okay to kill an early foetus is that we consider that it is not developed enough to have gain consciousness. And the time it takes before reaching consciousness will obviously be measured starting from conception, not when the baby is born. So, we usually count from being born because it is easier and the difference is negligible once the child reach 1/2 years. But before that, the difference matters.
Again, you are (now I am sure willfully) ignoring the context of my comment. In this case, baby was born prematurely and dumped. For the elements of this case and the charges used in this case it makes sense.
I've made ZERO comments on abortion, when I feel it may be okay, when I feel it may not be, at what point in a pregnancy it is/could be/should be legal.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
CptJake wrote:
How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?
What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
I'd say yes. A newborn isn't as developed as a three year old, and I wouldn't say as self aware as a three year old.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
CptJake wrote:I've made ZERO comments on abortion, when I feel it may be okay, when I feel it may not be, at what point in a pregnancy it is/could be/should be legal.
For the same reasons that aborting after one week is considered differently than aborting after 9 month, killing a 3 month early premature minutes-old baby is considered differently than killing a three years old baby.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Mr. Burning wrote:Well said Sebster.
I'm sure that this case was compounded by Indianan social taboos as well as by her upbringing and family life.
I think it's important to differentiate "Indian" from "Indianan" in this instance..... Automatically Appended Next Post:  Wyzilla wrote:
I'd say yes. A newborn isn't as developed as a three year old, and I wouldn't say as self aware as a three year old.
Does that make it any less alive or it's life any less valuable?
I've said this before, while I morally have problems with abortion overall, I absolutely think they should be legal. With that being said, I think we need to do some significant looking into how we address the law in regards to charging people with crimes. In all but 8 states, late term abortions are already illegal, with most of those states noting "viability" of the child. IMO, if they're not allowing abortions during that time period, any harm that comes to the child at that point should be reflective of the full punishment that one would receive for harming a "full person" (I couldn't think of better phrasing).
That's why I have such a problem with the decision in the Colorado case. Of course, it does so happen that Colorado is one of 8 states that has no restriction on abortion based on fetal viability.....so yeah.
23
Post by: djones520
Wyzilla wrote: CptJake wrote:
How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?
What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?
I'd say yes. A newborn isn't as developed as a three year old, and I wouldn't say as self aware as a three year old.
So, should a crime committed against a 20 year old man with mental defect who is only as developed as a five year old, not be treated as we would another 20 year old man?
This line of thinking is ridiculous. It was a living, breathing, human being.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
This topic has always been difficult for me.
I remain firmly for abortion, but that does not mean I do not give the subject any consideration. Where is the line drawn? Choosing not to have sex and concieve is a bit like super-early abortion, isn't it? Or contraception.
Where is the border drawn between a 'living, breathing human being' or not? Is it at the moment of conception? Is abortion of a fetus that has not delivered any actual mental functions whatsoever not morally identical to just using contraception? Where do you draw the line for where it is immoral?
Many questions, and I see few obvious answers.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 djones520 wrote:So, should a crime committed against a 20 year old man with mental defect who is only as developed as a five year old, not be treated as we would another 20 year old man?
A five years old is completely conscious, and committing a crime against her/him is going to be punished just as harsh, or even harsher, than the same crime committed against a 20 year old woman/man.
34390
Post by: whembly
Man... that line of thinking is so alien.
I do agree with Seb earlier... the social taboo need to be addressed somehow to mitigate this.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 Ashiraya wrote:This topic has always been difficult for me.
I remain firmly for abortion, but that does not mean I do not give the subject any consideration. Where is the line drawn? Choosing not to have sex and concieve is a bit like super-early abortion, isn't it? Or contraception.
Where is the border drawn between a 'living, breathing human being' or not? Is it at the moment of conception? Is abortion of a fetus that has not delivered any actual mental functions whatsoever not morally identical to just using contraception? Where do you draw the line for where it is immoral?
Many questions, and I see few obvious answers.
Most state and national abortion laws only prevent late term/third trimester abortions for any reason behind the health of the mother. Once an unborn fetus develops to the point where it can live outside the womb and a successful live birth is possible the morality and legality of killing that developed fetus becomes more of an issue. Medical advances keep pushing the survival rate for preemature births up and lowering the number of weeks of gestation needed to produce a live birth (although quality of life/development issues remain for premature births). When does a fetus become officially viable for living outside the womb? 26 weeks? 30 weeks? Regardless of when you draw that distinction there is no changing the fact that the initial clump of cells at some point turns into a viable tiny person. Once that tiny person exists the state has an obligation to prosecute anyone that seeks to deliberately harm that tiny person.
If the woman in question wanted to terminate her pregnancy then she should have done it earlier on before her microscopic fertilized egg turned into a tiny person.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Xenomancers wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?
Women aren't required to go to doctors when pregnant...so that's irrelevant. ...
Women are required to go to doctors if they want an abortion else it is an illegal, unlicensed abortion.
Part of the issue in this case is how few abortion clinics there are in Indiana, as well as the woman's family's bias against sex outside marriage, and so on.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Kilkrazy wrote:Part of the issue in this case is how few abortion clinics there are in Indiana, as well as the woman's family's bias against sex outside marriage, and so on.
I would have significantly more sympathy for her if she had spoken with a doctor, and attempted to procure an abortion the lawful way. She made no attempt to seek medical advice, so the claim that greater access to an abortion service may have prevented her later conduct is thin at best.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Given that she did procure an illegal abortion it seems reasonable that she would have liked a legal abortion but was discouraged from seeking one by some kind of barriers.
From the social viewpoint, she was discouraged from seeking a legal abortion by her family position, and probably by the difficulty of seeking a legal abortion in Indiana due to the low number of clinics. If there were more abortion clinics in Indiana, the barriers to abortion would be lower.
Indiana of course is one of those states where the law has been tailored to try to discourage women from seeking abortions whether legal or illegal.
23
Post by: djones520
So, that excuses her?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Where did anyone say anything remotely like that?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kilkrazy wrote:Given that she did procure an illegal abortion it seems reasonable that she would have liked a legal abortion but was discouraged from seeking one by some kind of barriers.
From the social viewpoint, she was discouraged from seeking a legal abortion by her family position, and probably by the difficulty of seeking a legal abortion in Indiana due to the low number of clinics. If there were more abortion clinics in Indiana, the barriers to abortion would be lower.
Indiana of course is one of those states where the law has been tailored to try to discourage women from seeking abortions whether legal or illegal.
Seems like in her county there were a few legal choices:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=abortion+clinics+in+St.+Joseph's+County,+Indiana&form=APMCS1
I wonder how many she looked in to?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is not an excuse, it is an explanation or partial explanation for her behaviour.
Otherwise you would have to assume this woman decided to get pregnant and procure an illegal abortion leaving a trail of evidence that would lead to her imprisonment for 20 years for the lulz. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Given that she did procure an illegal abortion it seems reasonable that she would have liked a legal abortion but was discouraged from seeking one by some kind of barriers.
From the social viewpoint, she was discouraged from seeking a legal abortion by her family position, and probably by the difficulty of seeking a legal abortion in Indiana due to the low number of clinics. If there were more abortion clinics in Indiana, the barriers to abortion would be lower.
Indiana of course is one of those states where the law has been tailored to try to discourage women from seeking abortions whether legal or illegal.
Seems like in her county there were a few legal choices:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=abortion+clinics+in+St.+Joseph's+County,+Indiana&form=APMCS1
I wonder how many she looked in to?
As I understand the case, none of them. The question is why not?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Because people make bad choices (or don't make good ones).
And they should face consequences for it, as this lady will.
A line from a Dropkick Murphys song comes into mind.
"She had excuses and she chose to use them"
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I would have significantly more sympathy for her if she had spoken with a doctor, and attempted to procure an abortion the lawful way. She made no attempt to seek medical advice, so the claim that greater access to an abortion service may have prevented her later conduct is thin at best.
I said it already but maybe a bit too coated in sarcasm. Why would she choose to try an unlawful abortion over a lawful one? Certainly not because she wants to make baby dumplings. That is the real problem. All the social reasons that pushed her toward this terrible situation.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kilkrazy wrote:Given that she did procure an illegal abortion it seems reasonable that she would have liked a legal abortion but was discouraged from seeking one by some kind of barriers.
From the social viewpoint, she was discouraged from seeking a legal abortion by her family position, and probably by the difficulty of seeking a legal abortion in Indiana due to the low number of clinics. If there were more abortion clinics in Indiana, the barriers to abortion would be lower.
Indiana of course is one of those states where the law has been tailored to try to discourage women from seeking abortions whether legal or illegal.
No proof of illegal abortion though. Reasonable doubt is all you need. How do you think Casey Anthony got off? Because they had no evidence. Just like this case. No tox report of abortion drugs - she should walk.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Xenomancers wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Given that she did procure an illegal abortion it seems reasonable that she would have liked a legal abortion but was discouraged from seeking one by some kind of barriers.
From the social viewpoint, she was discouraged from seeking a legal abortion by her family position, and probably by the difficulty of seeking a legal abortion in Indiana due to the low number of clinics. If there were more abortion clinics in Indiana, the barriers to abortion would be lower.
Indiana of course is one of those states where the law has been tailored to try to discourage women from seeking abortions whether legal or illegal.
No proof of illegal abortion though. Reasonable doubt is all you need. How do you think Casey Anthony got off? Because they had no evidence. Just like this case. No tox report of abortion drugs - she should walk.
But again, the defense failed to show reasonable doubt. And there is no tox test for the drug she claimed in her text to have taken. So lack of a tox report would be the norm.
So, no, she should not walk.
|
|
