She had a stillborn baby. Now she’s being charged with murder.

Well seems the so called “pro-lifers” on this thread are advocating this very thing

 

Is there any proof that the meth killed the baby?

 

That's a flat out lie. Why would you make such a claim when it is easy to verify?

 

Legally that may not matter so much. If you are using illegal drugs, and you are involved in an automobile accident, even if it's not truly known if or how much the use of those illegal drugs contributed to the accident, it's generally assumed that the accident was caused by being under the influence of the drugs, and that immediately makes it go from being classified as accidental to being reckless manslaughter.

I don't necessarily agree with that legal logic so much (or at least not fully) but that is the legal logic that's in use, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a jury member that is not going to go by that reasoning.
This is still true in cases where there may have been special extenuating circumstances and anyone could have fallen prey to getting involved in that accident. That's just how the legal system works.

 

In the united states, any death that stems from engaging in felony activity, such as usage of illicit narcotic substances, is classified as a murder.

 

Unfortunately that's true, in most states, more so in some than others. (It touches on the whole "felony murder" doctrine, which we've had other threads about) I don't agree with it, but that's the reality. For some of the more liberal states though, it would just be manslaughter (not actually murder), which is still a very similar legal designation to murder in many ways. The point is it's going to be assumed, in almost all parts of the US, that the drugs led to the death, and the drug-user is not going to get the benefit of the doubt, even if it was not proved that the drugs were the direct cause of the accident.
So in this case, the woman assumed legal liability for the suspicious fetal death through her drug use.

She was likely harming her fetus, even if it died, whether the cause of death was actually drugs or not.

 

Then the individual in question should have known better than to engage in the use of illicit narcotic substances. There is simply no excuse engaging in such a course of action.

 

The issue here is treating drug addiction as a CRIME instead of an illness!

As long as we INSIST on continuing with the FAILED phony "war on drugs" we will CONTINUE to have VICTIMS which in this instance are BOTH the mother and the infant.

LEGALIZING drug usage means that she would have received TREATMENT for her addiction which would have INCLUDED prenatal care and counseling.

Putting her on trial puts our society on trial.

What happened here will CONTINUE to happen as long as we continue to keep our heads up our collective asses and IGNORE the REALITY of the problem.

LEGALIZE drug usage and TREAT addicts are PATIENTS as opposed to criminals.

EVERYONE who PRETENDS to be "pro-life" should support this legalization if they are HONESTLY interested in "saving" lives like these.

I don't need a crystal ball to predict the response that will be forthcoming from those who oppose abortion while supporting both the death penalty and the insane war on drugs.

 

Addiction is not an illness.

Such would ultimately lead to more deaths than are already being experienced in the united states.

But perhaps such is ultimately what is necessary for the problem to actually be solved. Perhaps it is finally time for the society of the united states to experience the full, overwhelming weight and cost of their desire to see illicit substances made legal for recreational use, and comprehend just what they are asking for. As those indulging in such substances die off in large numbers through overdosing, and left to decay where others must walk through their daily lives, the significance of their decisions will be made quite clear to them. No one will be able to claim ignorance, and that they had no idea of just how dangerous the use of such substances was. Eventually there will be no one left to become addicted or die of overdoses, and the matter will solve itself. That is ultimately what is desired, is it not?

If individuals wish to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting so hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public. It would be the most logical course of action to engage in, seeing as how everything else has failed.

 

Who to believe?

Someone who is consistently WRONG or the AMA, the APA,the Surgeon General and Science?

https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/addiction/what-is-addiction

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/b...diction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing

Needless to say my prediction about the kneejerk denial response was accurate.

 

The American Medical Association is nothing more than a special interest lobbying group, no different than the National Rifle Association, and no more credible. It does not care about the well being of the patients, its only interest is what benefits the physicians. Just as the National Rifle Association does not care about those who would be negatively affected by reduced firearm-related restrictions in the interest of the second amendment.

 

She put meth into her baby.

 

They tried to do this 25 years ago in South Carolina and it blew up in their faces.

 

Do what? Feed meth to babies?
Arrest mothers for turning their unborn developing children into crack babies?

You're not being the most clear with your comment. Not sure what you are talking about.

 

What other options did she have given that she was suffering from a treatable illness that is erroneously classified as a crime instead of a disease?

 

Another load of bovine excrement!

Comparing the AMA to the NRA is an utterly BOGUS deflection that has no merit whatsoever.

 

Have you any definitive evidence that the meth OR the crack caused the death of the foetus?

 

No she took meth

The “baby” was a ride along

 

Feel free to use alternatives

 

Meth is commonly made with fertilizer, lithium batteries, lye, coleman fuel, starter fluid, etc. You doubt it harms the unborn? Look what it does to the living...

 

We don't need to have definitive evidence. We only need to have evidence her actions could have caused the death of the fetus.

She doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, because she was a pregnant woman taking illegal drugs.

Any dum dum knows taking meth while pregnant could harm, or permanently mess up, your fetus.

I'm sure some of you will put forward the argument "Well, she couldn't control herself."
Well, she should have thought of that before she started using meth; a fertile woman of reproductive age, going around and having sex.

What part of being young, female, having lots of sex, and using potentially addictive illegal substances, do you think goes together??

Let this be a lesson to her. And if she wants to keep using drugs, she should get sterilized. I hope they offer to do the deed for her, now.

The other option, if she really wants to have a child of her own someday, is to go to drug treatment.
Probably needs some sex addiction therapy, as well.

 

From a legal standpoint it does not matter whether such is the case or not. The matter falls squarely on a felony murder doctrine.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine

From a legal standpoint, everyone involved in the commission of the felony offense can be charged for the murder of the infant. The mother for taking the illicit narcotic substances, the dealer who chose to sell the illicit narcotic substances to the mothers, those who produced the illicit narcotic substances for marketing and distribution.

 

There is a reason illicit narcotic substances are classified as illegal in the first place, due to the risk of harm they present to anyone who utilizes them, and their lacking of any constructive benefits.

Even those who are suffering from illness and disease can be held responsible for their actions, when said actions pose a risk of harm to others. HIV and/or AIDS are diseases, yet knowingly transmitting them to other partners is a crime. Individuals suffering from schizophrenia are not given a pass when they wind up murdering someone in a delusional period.

If the individual in question was simply too stupid to know that her actions were illegal, that is obtaining and using illicit narcotic substances that have been illegal since before she herself was born, that is not the fault of anyone but herself. She cannot claim she did not know that using illicit narcotic substances was illegal, as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Perhaps she should have thought of that before engaging in the activities that led to her addiction in the first place.

 

OKEY DOKEY THEN!


HOW did she do that?

Anti-Choicers say that the fetus is NOT part of the woman it's in, does NOT live off the woman, so how does THAT work ?

 

How can the State charge a woman with murder when abortion is legal and under THAT law a fetus is not a human being??? The fetus is either human under the law or it is not. There is a double standard at work here. According to what I interpret as a pro choice position she is no more guilty of murder than if she cut off her thumb.