100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A Question of Ethics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/4769194
Against her attorney’s advice, Jennifer Hazlett faces up to 10 years after she pleaded guilty to endangering her child’s life by using cocaine during pregnancy.
The plea, however, depends on the outcome of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling on a similar 2006 case from Casey County, which the high court heard Dec. 10. Hazlett, 22, of 301 Holmes St., could withdraw her plea if the Supreme Court rules a Casey County woman who used cocaine during pregnancy can’t be charged with wanton endangerment. Hazlett stood solemnly next to public defender Clay Wilkey Friday and told Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd she knew the consequences of pleading guilty, namely losing her right to a trial and appeal. Wilkey said his client went against his advice by pleading guilty. “I think we should wait and see how the (Supreme Court) case determines this issue,” Wilkey said in court after Hazlett pleaded guilty. Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Dana Todd said Hazlett had wanted to plead guilty numerous times during the case so she could get drug treatment and be reunited with her children. “Ms. Hazlett indicated by her signature and by her mother’s support to both the commonwealth and Mr. Wilkey that she’s prepared to accept this agreement and be on her way to treatment and have her children back in her life. “That’s what the commonwealth is prepared to do,” Todd said before Hazlett pleaded guilty. Wilkey told The State Journal he takes issue with the nature of the charges his client pleaded guilty to Friday, primarily because a fetus isn’t considered a person under Kentucky law. “I don’t see how it’s OK to have an abortion, but it’s not OK to do something which would hurt the fetus on the part of the mother,” Wilkey said. “I don’t see how one could make the argument that it’s OK to kill a person, but it’s not OK to hurt a person if you consider a fetus to be a person, which the law does not.” The last paragraph that I quoted ( there is more to the article in the link ) poses, to me, an interesting question. Before I ask that question, I want to make sure that everyone knows that I am not 100% pro life, nor am I 100% pro choice. I feel there are some circumstances where abortion may be justified while I find no justification for other occurrences. The question is, as posed by the defense attorney, how can we justify charging someone with a crime for harming a child by using illegal drugs ( and yes, I KNOW the drugs themselves are illegal but that isn't what the charge is about ) while not charging someone for actually killing a child. Both the harm done by this particular mother, and the death of a child by another mother, happen before the birth of the child. How do we, as a civilization, justify such a double standard? I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone from either side. I am just curious to see the justification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good question. IF I understand what you are asking, then IMO it would be the outcome after the child is born. IF I understand this correctly, then the mother planned on having the child, but endangered the child before it was born.
I guess it would be expecting the ramifications of the drug abuse when the child is born |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humm that is a good question so did she not deliver and the baby died before birth?
Without that fact it is hard to come to conclusion. Due to the fact drugs normally do not kill the fetus they are normally born already addicted to the drugs. Which looks like it to me at that time they could file charges on the mother for endangerment to a child. But if she did not deliver to full term then I don't see how she could be charged when in fact abortion is not considered a crime. But then it would make me wonder why she was told just because she went into treatment she in fact would get her other kids back. So she pleaded guilty to have that option. Something does not sound right here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the baby was actually delivered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe....and this is just thinking out loud....the difference is the intent. The mother intended to deliver the baby but still endangered the baby
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if she delivered the baby seems to me they did the charges wrong for they could have charged her with endangerment to a child normally baby's that are born are born with the signs of the drugs within their system. Cause it would be hard to believe she only did the drug once while she was pregnant. And if in fact she did and the baby was totally healthy and no signs of drug addiction sounds like they are barking up the wrong tree.
What about women that drink or smoke cigarettes while pregnant would that not as well be the same case structure.....regardless which one does more harm they all in fact could in the end. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe...
But where does the disconnect come in that says it's ok to take away a life ( when it's an abortion before the child is born ) but not ok to " harm " a child while pregnant? Where is the moral disconnect that says " You can kill the child, but if you aren't going to kill it, you better not harm it "??? If just doing the unborn child " harm " is bad enough to have charges brought against the mother, then how can it be justified that taking the life of the child is any less a crime? Like I said..I'm not looking to pick a fight. I am genuinely curious where the difference is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's all about intent. If you plan on having the child, then you are expected to not endanger the child....dunno
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/4769194 Against her attorney’s advice, Jennifer Hazlett faces up to 10 years after she pleaded guilty to endangering her child’s life by using cocaine during pregnancy.
The plea, however, depends on the outcome of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling on a similar 2006 case from Casey County, which the high court heard Dec. 10. Hazlett, 22, of 301 Holmes St., could withdraw her plea if the Supreme Court rules a Casey County woman who used cocaine during pregnancy can’t be charged with wanton endangerment. Hazlett stood solemnly next to public defender Clay Wilkey Friday and told Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd she knew the consequences of pleading guilty, namely losing her right to a trial and appeal. Wilkey said his client went against his advice by pleading guilty. “I think we should wait and see how the (Supreme Court) case determines this issue,” Wilkey said in court after Hazlett pleaded guilty. Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Dana Todd said Hazlett had wanted to plead guilty numerous times during the case so she could get drug treatment and be reunited with her children. “Ms. Hazlett indicated by her signature and by her mother’s support to both the commonwealth and Mr. Wilkey that she’s prepared to accept this agreement and be on her way to treatment and have her children back in her life. “That’s what the commonwealth is prepared to do,” Todd said before Hazlett pleaded guilty. Wilkey told The State Journal he takes issue with the nature of the charges his client pleaded guilty to Friday, primarily because a fetus isn’t considered a person under Kentucky law. “I don’t see how it’s OK to have an abortion, but it’s not OK to do something which would hurt the fetus on the part of the mother,” Wilkey said. “I don’t see how one could make the argument that it’s OK to kill a person, but it’s not OK to hurt a person if you consider a fetus to be a person, which the law does not.” The last paragraph that I quoted ( there is more to the article in the link ) poses, to me, an interesting question. Before I ask that question, I want to make sure that everyone knows that I am not 100% pro life, nor am I 100% pro choice. I feel there are some circumstances where abortion may be justified while I find no justification for other occurrences. The question is, as posed by the defense attorney, how can we justify charging someone with a crime for harming a child by using illegal drugs ( and yes, I KNOW the drugs themselves are illegal but that isn't what the charge is about ) while not charging someone for actually killing a child. Both the harm done by this particular mother, and the death of a child by another mother, happen before the birth of the child. How do we, as a civilization, justify such a double standard? I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone from either side. I am just curious to see the justification. The reason is that if the mother chooses not to bring the child into the world and terminates the pregnancy under the law she is not making another life suffer. If she brings a child into the world addicted to drugs, she is making another life suffer. Here the child is removed from her and put into foster care until she can prove to the court she is drug free and working and has a solid home environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that if the mother chooses not to bring the child into the world and terminates the pregnancy under the law she is not making another life suffer.
If she brings a child into the world addicted to drugs, she is making another life suffer. Here the child is removed from her and put into foster care until she can prove to the court she is drug free and working and has a solid home environment. Ya know...as odd as it may sound...I was actually HOPING you would come into this thread. No seriously. And not in a bad way. If, as you say, " under the law " the difference is that she isn't making another life suffer... Then also " under the law " taking a life after having planned to do so is considered pre meditated. If a person commits per meditated murder against another person, it's a crime of the highest order. Pre meditated death of a child ( although unborn ) is legal. Is the child ( although unborn ) not considered a life? My question is more about the moral disconnect that allows one type of pre meditated death to be a crime, while another is not. How is it morally justified to punish someone for taking a persons life, but not be punished for taking the life of a fetus? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JAG...IMO it depends on the situations, etc. Such as rape, incest, health risks, emotional problems, etc.
I, personally, don't agree with doing it as a form of birth control, but it's not always as black and white either |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that if the mother chooses not to bring the child into the world and terminates the pregnancy under the law she is not making another life suffer.
If she brings a child into the world addicted to drugs, she is making another life suffer. Here the child is removed from her and put into foster care until she can prove to the court she is drug free and working and has a solid home environment. Ya know...as odd as it may sound...I was actually HOPING you would come into this thread. No seriously. And not in a bad way. If, as you say, " under the law " the difference is that she isn't making another life suffer... Then also " under the law " taking a life after having planned to do so is considered pre meditated. If a person commits per meditated murder against another person, it's a crime of the highest order. Pre meditated death of a child ( although unborn ) is legal. Is the child ( although unborn ) not considered a life? My question is more about the moral disconnect that allows one type of pre meditated death to be a crime, while another is not. How is it morally justified to punish someone for taking a persons life, but not be punished for taking the life of a fetus? Fetus is not a life by law. Sorry if that offends but it is the law. If you take a pregnancy to birth or close to birth, if the fetus can live on the outside of the mother and you addict this life to drugs when it is your responsibility to care for it you are guilty of child abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JAG...IMO it depends on the situations, etc. Such as rape, incest, health risks, emotional problems, etc. I, personally, don't agree with doing it as a form of birth control, but it's not always as black and white either Oh I agree. Like I said in the OP, I am not 100% for or against abortion. I know that things aren't always black and white. No matter how much people might wish them to be. Funny thing is....according to Rush Limbaugh, I am a Liberal because I can see the issue from both sides. * shrugs * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that if the mother chooses not to bring the child into the world and terminates the pregnancy under the law she is not making another life suffer.
If she brings a child into the world addicted to drugs, she is making another life suffer. Here the child is removed from her and put into foster care until she can prove to the court she is drug free and working and has a solid home environment. Ya know...as odd as it may sound...I was actually HOPING you would come into this thread. No seriously. And not in a bad way. If, as you say, " under the law " the difference is that she isn't making another life suffer... Then also " under the law " taking a life after having planned to do so is considered pre meditated. If a person commits per meditated murder against another person, it's a crime of the highest order. Pre meditated death of a child ( although unborn ) is legal. Is the child ( although unborn ) not considered a life? My question is more about the moral disconnect that allows one type of pre meditated death to be a crime, while another is not. How is it morally justified to punish someone for taking a persons life, but not be punished for taking the life of a fetus? Fetus is not a life by law. Sorry if that offends but it is the law. If you take a pregnancy to birth or close to birth, if the fetus can live on the outside of the mother and you addict this life to drugs when it is your responsibility to care for it you are guilty of child abuse. According to the law, that's true. But, like I said...I am referring more to the moral issue. If it's morally ok to take one life, then why is it immoral to take another? I'm really not talking about the letter of the law here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that if the mother chooses not to bring the child into the world and terminates the pregnancy under the law she is not making another life suffer.
If she brings a child into the world addicted to drugs, she is making another life suffer. Here the child is removed from her and put into foster care until she can prove to the court she is drug free and working and has a solid home environment. Ya know...as odd as it may sound...I was actually HOPING you would come into this thread. No seriously. And not in a bad way. If, as you say, " under the law " the difference is that she isn't making another life suffer... Then also " under the law " taking a life after having planned to do so is considered pre meditated. If a person commits per meditated murder against another person, it's a crime of the highest order. Pre meditated death of a child ( although unborn ) is legal. Is the child ( although unborn ) not considered a life? My question is more about the moral disconnect that allows one type of pre meditated death to be a crime, while another is not. How is it morally justified to punish someone for taking a persons life, but not be punished for taking the life of a fetus? Fetus is not a life by law. Sorry if that offends but it is the law. If you take a pregnancy to birth or close to birth, if the fetus can live on the outside of the mother and you addict this life to drugs when it is your responsibility to care for it you are guilty of child abuse. According to the law, that's true. But, like I said...I am referring more to the moral issue. If it's morally ok to take one life, then why is it immoral to take another? I'm really not talking about the letter of the law here. Considering morals are independently individual. Can we really discuss it at that level? My morals are mine and yours are yours. Making neither of us wrong. The only place we can meet in the middle is by the letter of the law. Personally I don't like abortion and have worked with any young girls who have entered my life to try to help them from ending up at a clinic. Am I against it, no. Am I for it, no. Will I defend the right of others to have abortions, yes. I will not try to stop another person from doing what they feel is right for themselves. It is not my place to impose my views on others at this very private and important decision in their lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there will be differences about the morality of it.
Those differences are actually what I am looking for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there will be differences about the morality of it. Those differences are actually what I am looking for. Well and you know the issue get convoluted with all kinds of crazy things like eugenics and such. It gets so crazy. Morality is a touchy subject too because people tend to believe their morality should apply to all. And they are incorrect in that assumption no matter where they get their morals from. I am off now. Bed time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there will be differences about the morality of it. Those differences are actually what I am looking for. Well and you know the issue get convoluted with all kinds of crazy things like eugenics and such. It gets so crazy. Morality is a touchy subject too because people tend to believe their morality should apply to all. And they are incorrect in that assumption no matter where they get their morals from. I am off now. Bed time.
Sleep well. And thanks. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we will always have inconsistent laws because sometimes the logic of people is inconsistent
why do we prosecute weed use but not alcohol, why is it ok to have casual sex but not ok to be paid for it, why is it ok for a teen to have sex with a teen but not someone older than a teen, .... all these actions are the same action but for some reason we see them differently based upon public perception I dont agree with it personally, I believe life in the womb is still life and dont agree with snubbing it out or willfully endangering it. But there will probably never be a time when all the laws on the book are actually consistent with each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both the harm done by this particular mother, and the death of a child by another mother, happen before the birth of the child. How do we, as a civilization, justify such a double standard? It's not a double standard, it's a pro-life straw man argument because there are different circumstances and legal principles that differentiate each case. No matter how much it appears so on the surface, all things in the two scenarios are not equal. As in all such cases, one has to ask: What's Really Going On Here. First, to legally qualify for murder or unlawful taking of a human life though violent means, there has to be malicious intent. There was no malicious intent here, just negligent disregard. And unlike an abortion, that negligence could have had dire conseqences for the potential human life its entire lifespan _after_ it left the womb and became an autonomous person. Second, there is also no malicious intent when a woman whose life is in peril makes a perfectly legal choice to have a late term abortion to save her own life. I'm sure many in the pro-life movement would disagree, but they seem not to have a leg to stand on when they bring these cases to court. Finally, I think one has to consider the very real legal danger that by deciding to equate the two scenarios, one gives dangerous precedents which the more fringe elements of the pro-life movement might try to leverage into such things as habeas corpus rights for blastocysts, embryos and fetuses, thus negating the right of women to make choices about their bodies and reproductive rights. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
