Pregnant moms can harm babies at will

[Avatar4321]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47661

Talk about a case that makes you want to be physically ill. And that woman looks so hardened. Its eeire.

Regardless, it would be interesting to see whether there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. If there is it will be after Alito is on and who knows where the court will take it.

 

[MissileMan]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47661

Talk about a case that makes you want to be physically ill. And that woman looks so hardened. Its eeire.

Regardless, it would be interesting to see whether there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. If there is it will be after Alito is on and who knows where the court will take it.

I understand the concern for the health of a fetus, but what kind of preventative measures are you willing to see levied? Do we drag pregnant women out of their homes and place them in state-run birthing centers to ensure they don't do anything to harm the babies they are carrying? Do we make it a capital offense for women to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol while pregnant? Where do you draw the line?

 

[dmp]

I understand the concern for the health of a fetus, but what kind of preventative measures are you willing to see levied? Do we drag pregnant women out of their homes and place them in state-run birthing centers to ensure they don't do anything to harm the babies they are carrying? Do we make it a capital offense for women to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol while pregnant? Where do you draw the line?

We draw the line when somebody 'knows better' but acts anyway. Smoking? No ...Smoking 10 packs a day with the PURPOSE of hurting the kid? yes. Drinking? No. Drinking with the intent of hurting the baby? yes.

 

[Hobbit]

"I believe [the case] changed me into a better person and I just hope to share that with others."

Bullcrap. The case has taught you that you can get away with anything as long as you can find the right loophole.

 

[MissileMan]

We draw the line when somebody 'knows better' but acts anyway. Smoking? No ...Smoking 10 packs a day with the PURPOSE of hurting the kid? yes. Drinking? No. Drinking with the intent of hurting the baby? yes.

What's the difference between that and "A little hit of Crack? No. Getting high with the intent to harm the baby? Yes."

And what about smoking 10 packs a day without any intent to harm the baby, but harm the baby nonetheless?

 

[Hobbit]

What's the difference between that and "A little hit of Crack? No. Getting high with the intent to harm the baby? Yes."

And what about smoking 10 packs a day without any intent to harm the baby, but harm the baby nonetheless?

I gotta agree with you on this, though I probably fall on the other side of the line. Activities that are known to harm babies are well documented, common knowledge. Engaging in said activites should have their consequences just as much as a person is liable for murder, or at least manslaughter, for firing a weapon randomly. The resulting death is a forseeable outcome of your actions, whether that was the intended outcome or not, and that makes you legally liable, like in that episode of CSI where a guy fired his gun into the air in a residential area and the bullet came down and killed somebody a few blocks away. Somebody getting killed is a forseeable outcome to a random gunshot in an area full of people, making whoever fired it liable for any occurring death. The baby dieing is a forseeable outcome to consuming potentially harmful chemicals during pregnancy, making the mom liable in the baby's death.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I don't think intent is the issue here, since any reasonable person would know that crystal meth would harm a child, intentionally or not.

How sad that some humans cannot muster up the simplest, most basic maternal instinct, the preservation of their own offspring. And even sadder that our society can condone behavior that a mama sewer rat wouldn't even exhibit.

 

[manu1959]

hawaiian law states that a person by definition is one that has been born.....

they won the case on the definition of a word....

a law will soon be passed to change the definition same as they did in califonia

 

[Merlin]

Well hallelujah and glory be!! Finally, a Supreme Court with some common sense. We need these judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[pegwinn]

Well hallelujah and glory be!! Finally, a Supreme Court with some common sense. We need these judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

You are joking right?

 

[Merlin]

You are joking right?

Joking???? I'm as serious as cancer. What makes you think it is a joke? The joke is the courts that rule any different.

 

[archangel]

All I can say is they had better be careful...they just may wake up the sleeping Queen of the Volcano...she may just take them out along with a Tsunami hitting the Bay area or is that 'Bath House' area...at any rate Hawaii is about as super liberal as any entity can get cept' San Francisco....

 

[Mr. P]

Well hallelujah and glory be!! Finally, a Supreme Court with some common sense. We need these judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well, I disagree with much of what you say Merlin, on this I agree.

I’m surprised others haven’t said so too, after all, it’s here I have seen many that shout about the Judiciary Legislating from the bench, in this case they clearly followed and ruled based on the existing Law.

I don't like the situation at all, but I can't blame the Court for that.

 

[archangel]

Well, I disagree with much of what you say Merlin, on this I agree.

I’m surprised others haven’t said so too, after all, it’s here I have seen many that shout about the Judiciary Legislating from the bench, in this case they clearly followed and ruled based on the existing Law.

I don't like the situation at all, but I can't blame the Court for that.

Let me see here the mother took a hit of Cyrstal Meth hours before birth...the baby boy was out of the loop for any abortion as defined under law..
the baby boy passed away from a drug overdose two days after a "Live"birth...and you really believe the court followed the letter of the law much less the spirit? Mr."P" I am truly amazed with your "spirit" of liberalism!

 

[pegwinn]

Joking???? I'm as serious as cancer. What makes you think it is a joke? The joke is the courts that rule any different.

Let's see, Mom takes direct action and kills her kid. No Joke.
Convicted. No Joke.
Overturned. Sadly, No Joke.
Supported by some.......... A sick sick joke