A question for pro-choice supporters

[Rikurzhen]

Here's a news story:

A Texas woman was executed Wednesday evening for her role in the torture and starvation death of her girlfriend's 9-year-old son.

Lisa Ann Coleman, 38, died at 6:24 p.m. CT, 12 minutes after being injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital.

Before the drug was administered, Coleman said goodbye to several friends and "the girls on the Row." There was a slight gasp and her eyes closed. Her death appeared to be calm and peaceful, in contrast with some other recent lethal injection executions in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied her final appeal less than two hours before her sentence was to be carried out.
​

I'm not interested in the death penalty debate, so let's please shelve that here.

What I'm interested in are your thoughts on whether the execution of this women, or any other women facing the death penalty, should be delayed if she is found to be pregnant on the date of her execution.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Did this discovery on the day of occur because of a customary gynecological exam prior to execution, or a rush-job home pregnancy test smuggled in by the warden?

Does anyone else know?​

 

[AVG-JOE]

These "what if..." political scenarios amuse me.

 

[Rikurzhen]

These "what if..." political scenarios amuse me.

I live to serve. I'm tickled that you're amused but you didn't address the question.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Seriously...

I suppose that, given the vague parameters of this little drama, my feeling is that the execution should be delayed until the kid is born.... The odds of the little bastard growing up to be a republican are pretty close to nil.

 

[Valerie]

These "what if..." political scenarios amuse me.

an interesting question however far fetched after a looong (longer than 9 months) legal process while detained in a women's prison.

 

[Rikurzhen]

These "what if..." political scenarios amuse me.

an interesting question however far fetched after a looong (longer than 9 months) legal process while detained in a women's prison.

Female prisoners do get pregnant while in prison.

Two hundred thirty three inmates gave birth while incarcerated in California’s prison system in 2011 and 2012, the most recent data available. Most were back in shackles two days later, their infants off to live with relatives or foster parents. KPCC’s Deepa Fernandes and photographer Mae Ryan visited pregnant women and new mothers housed at two very different prison facilities – and those raising their newborns.
​

So, are you pro-choice? If so, should the execution go ahead or not?

 

[Valerie]

International Committee of the Red Cross


Practice Relating to Rule 134. Women

Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers


I. Treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 6(5) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”


Customary IHL - Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers

 

[Valerie]

These "what if..." political scenarios amuse me.

an interesting question however far fetched after a looong (longer than 9 months) legal process while detained in a women's prison.

Female prisoners do get pregnant while in prison.

Two hundred thirty three inmates gave birth while incarcerated in California’s prison system in 2011 and 2012, the most recent data available. Most were back in shackles two days later, their infants off to live with relatives or foster parents. KPCC’s Deepa Fernandes and photographer Mae Ryan visited pregnant women and new mothers housed at two very different prison facilities – and those raising their newborns.
​

So, are you pro-choice? If so, should the execution go ahead or not?

no and those women were most likely pregnant prior to being detained...but that is beside the point anyway.

 

[Rikurzhen]

International Committee of the Red Cross


Practice Relating to Rule 134. Women

Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers


I. Treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 6(5) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”


Customary IHL - Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers

WHY though, why does that rule exist?

 

[Valerie]

International Committee of the Red Cross


Practice Relating to Rule 134. Women

Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers


I. Treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 6(5) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”


Customary IHL - Section C. Death penalty on pregnant women and nursing mothers

WHY though, why does that rule exist?

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.


“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

 

[Rikurzhen]

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

But WHY should the State have to wait a few months? Let's wait for a pro-choice supporter to come and answer this question.

 

[Valerie]

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

But WHY should the State have to wait a few months? Let's wait for a pro-choice supporter to come and answer this question.

i just told you why and i am a pro choice supporter. the state should have no jurisdiction there, that's why.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, are you pro-choice? If so, should the execution go ahead or not?

What possible difference could my opinion make?

If I'm pro choice... my position is that the decision belongs to the convict and her kin. She owns it.

She owns her body, she owns the decision. Even prison doesn't remove that basic right.

Ass-u-me-ing I'm pro choice...

 

[Valerie]

i guess what you are getting at is WHY the state should have no jurisdiction there in order to make some sort of emotional appeal, but i think it comes down to keeping the state from having jurisdiction there. emotionalists should be careful what they wish for when it comes to setting legal precedents...

 

[Valerie]

So, are you pro-choice? If so, should the execution go ahead or not?

What possible difference could my opinion make?

If I'm pro choice... my position is that the decision belongs to the convict and her kin. She owns it.

She owns her body, she owns the decision. Even prison doesn't remove that basic right.

Ass-u-me-ing I'm pro choice...

yep, think of the non felon father..grandparents, siblings, etc...

 

[Rikurzhen]

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

But WHY should the State have to wait a few months? Let's wait for a pro-choice supporter to come and answer this question.

i just told you why and i am a pro choice supporter. the state should have no jurisdiction there, that's why.

I misunderstood your previous comment, it appeared to say that you were not a pro-choice supporter.

I don't understand your position. What is wrong with conducting the execution immediately. Why should the state have to wait for a few months?

 

[Valerie]

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

But WHY should the State have to wait a few months? Let's wait for a pro-choice supporter to come and answer this question.

i just told you why and i am a pro choice supporter. the state should have no jurisdiction there, that's why.

I misunderstood your previous comment, it appeared to say that you were not a pro-choice supporter.

I don't understand your position. What is wrong with conducting the execution immediately. Why should the state have to wait for a few months?

the onus would be on the state to show why they shouldn't.

 

[Rikurzhen]

this civil rights covenant provides protection from any legal precedent whereby the state should ever have jurisdiction there... if the death penalty for the felon is inevitable, there is no reason the state can't wait a few months.

“Sentence of death shall not … be carried out on pregnant women.”

But WHY should the State have to wait a few months? Let's wait for a pro-choice supporter to come and answer this question.

i just told you why and i am a pro choice supporter. the state should have no jurisdiction there, that's why.

I misunderstood your previous comment, it appeared to say that you were not a pro-choice supporter.

I don't understand your position. What is wrong with conducting the execution immediately. Why should the state have to wait for a few months?

the onus would be on the state to show why they shouldn't.

Because the fetus is just a clump of cells, not a person.

 

[Valerie]

I misunderstood your previous comment, it appeared to say that you were not a pro-choice supporter.

I don't understand your position. What is wrong with conducting the execution immediately. Why should the state have to wait for a few months?

the onus would be on the state to show why they shouldn't.

Because the fetus is just a clump of cells, not a person.

so if you were the state attorney that would be your compelling argument?