A question for pro-choice supporters

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

What's also amusing is that the premise of the thread fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as well as exhibiting the OP's ignorance of the law.

The thread author is confusing criminal law with regard to procedural due process, such as murder and the death penalty, with that of civil law and substantive due process, such as the right to privacy prohibiting the state from interfering with personal, private matters.

Consequently, that the state would refrain from executing a pregnant woman has no bearing whatsoever on the right to privacy and the right of a woman to decide to have a child or not pursuant to the privacy right.

Indeed, for the state to execute the pregnant woman would be for the state to deny the condemned her right to substantive due process, having nothing to do with the embryo/fetus.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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

What's also amusing is that the premise of the thread fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as well as exhibiting the OP's ignorance of the law.

The thread author is confusing criminal law with regard to procedural due process, such as murder and the death penalty, with that of civil law and substantive due process, such as the right to privacy prohibiting the state from interfering with personal, private matters.

Consequently, that the state would refrain from executing a pregnant woman has no bearing whatsoever on the right to privacy and the right of a woman to decide to have a child or not pursuant to the privacy right.

Indeed, for the state to execute the pregnant woman would be for the state to deny the condemned her right to substantive due process, having nothing to do with the embryo/fetus.

Why on Earth should the State refrain from executing a pregnant woman? Why shouldn't she be treated like a non-pregnant woman or a man? What makes her different? Why should her execution be delayed?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

They should be irreversibly sterilized the day they are convicted.

 

[Valerie]

Why on Earth should the State refrain from executing a pregnant woman? Why shouldn't she be treated like a non-pregnant woman or a man? What makes her different? Why should her execution be delayed?

unless the woman chooses to abort the pregnancy, the State would have to argue it's compelling interest in denying that child to their father or grandparents, etc...

 

[Valerie]

based on the OPs flippant answer as to why the State should have such jurisdiction "Because the fetus is just a clump of cells, not a person."
i see what the OP is trying to do in addressing abortion from this point of view... no doubt pro-life litigators would like to set such a legal precedent!


contrary to popular belief, tangential arguments of random nitwits going on about 'clumps of cells' or emotionalists arguing that a fetus is a developing human baby (masters of the obvious) are irrelevant to the legal rationale...




In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

...abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.

...the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Obviously baiting people into yet another long name calling thread. This is a blatant troll thread.

My question is, why did they feed her a last meal? Why did they feed her at all. She tortured and starved a child. In jail since '06 and then a painless death. IMO, she got off easy.

 

[jwoodie]

Pretending, for the moment, that this is a question of logic, the execution should be delayed until the woman is no longer pregnant. If her pregnancy is the result of a conspiracy to obstruct justice (i.e., her execution), those involved should be criminally prosecuted.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why on Earth should the State refrain from executing a pregnant woman? Why shouldn't she be treated like a non-pregnant woman or a man? What makes her different? Why should her execution be delayed?

unless the woman chooses to abort the pregnancy, the State would have to argue it's compelling interest in denying that child to their father or grandparents, etc...

What child? No child exists.