100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A Question of Ethics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Seriously I still don't think they should be able to charge her for what she did during the time she was pregnant.
Her intent was to get high even if it was to terminate the pregnancy how would that be any different from having and abortion? But now once she had the baby that would be a different story for all babies are tested at birth. At that time if they baby was tested as positive for drugs then the charges should have been filed against her for endangering a life for now you have under the law a human life that you have in fact put in jeopardy. If they are able to charge her for what she did during the time of pregnancy you will in fact see a lot more of these cases in the future. Sooooooo now is every mother that smokes cigarettes going to be charged as well nicotine is as well considered a drug. Who knows it may be determined in the future that babies born by mothers that smoke are more apt to smoke in the future due to nicotine addiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. you are absolutely right about the legal definition of murder,, but I think the OP was asking along the lines of ethics and not the legal definitions negligent disregard which results in the death of someone is considered a crime called negligent homicide. What stirs the debate, usually, and the question I think the OP is pondering is how we qualify life. If a woman chooses to terminate the life in her womb while it is one to six months along,,,society often doesnt see it as a crime because society doesnt deem this life as valid. but lets say this same woman tries to terminate a pregnancy seven to nine months along( a time when we know it is a valid life because so many women give birth during these months). Society gets much more passionate about such a decision because it VALUES life at this stage. If the mother gave her newborn cocaine the day after she brought it home,, it would be hard to debate whether this was endangering the childs life and her children would be taken from her. There is little difference between the validity of the child at seven , eight, or nine months inside the womb and one or two days outside of it except the difference between where it gets its air. I think the charge is right on if this woman was using well into the period that the child could be born and survive(seven through nine months). I think it is also commendable that she aknowledges what she did and seeks treatment. |
|
|
|
|
