Pregnant moms can harm babies at will

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Avatar4321, Dec 1, 2005.

  1. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    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.
     
  2. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    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?
     
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    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.
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Bullcrap. The case has taught you that you can get away with anything as long as you can find the right loophole.
     
  5. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    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?
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    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.
     
  7. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    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.
     
  8. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    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
     
  9. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
    Well hallelujah and glory be!! Finally, a Supreme Court with some common sense. We need these judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  10. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    You are joking right?
     

Share This Page