Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Access to more efficient abortion methods?

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.

 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.

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.

So, that excuses her?

 djones520 wrote:
So, that excuses her?

Where did anyone say anything remotely like that?

 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?

 djones520 wrote:
So, that excuses her?

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?

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"

 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.

 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.

 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.