Alabama woman faces 10 years in prison for miscarriage

[Dan74]

Amanda Kimbrough has been ensnared by the law in a different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination. Kimbrough declined because she opposes abortion.
The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and lived just 19 minutes.
Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with ''chemical endangerment'' of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy - a claim she has denied.....She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which, if she loses, will see her begin a 10-year jail sentence. ''I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,'' she said. ''They say I'm a criminal - how do

Read more: Stillbirth mum up for murder

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous. Is this what the Alabama right wingers mean when they say "smaller government"? What a sick bunch of assholes.

[ruksak]

When are we going to start viewing pregnant women as caretakers of a new life and not victims of a parasitic infestation?

If they can prove her baby died directly as a result of the cocaine she ingested, then yes, she should be held liable for the death of her child.

Her actions sound like abuse of a child to me.

[Angry Citizen]

Her actions are no more abuse of a child than when you cut yourself with a kitchen knife. Fetuses are collections of cells. They ARE parasites -- quite literally.

[Listening]

I don't see any right wingers quoted in the article.

Why the assertion in the OP ?

As usual, there is a conclusion with no logicl connection to any premises. In fact, I can't even discern the premises.

or was this thread about the sillyness of the crime ?

Of course, it seems that we ought to have a long hard look at things like this since it can seem like a persecution.

[neochronomo]

Her actions are no more abuse of a child than when you cut yourself with a kitchen knife. Fetuses are collections of cells. They ARE parasites -- quite literally.

There's a big difference between necessary abortion and casually endangering the life of a fetus you intend to deliver. If we take what you're saying to its conclusion then women can do anything they want to a fetus inside them without consequence. If the fetus is delivered and it has a swarm of mental problems and physical deformities and injuries due to the mother's reckless behavior, oh well, no trouble there. After all, she wasn't harming a child, she was harming a parasitic collection of cells at the time.

[Second as Farce]

I don't see any right wingers quoted in the article.

Why the assertion in the OP ?

As usual, there is a conclusion with no logicl connection to any premises. In fact, I can't even discern the premises.

You're right- it was probably passed by all those hippie liberals in the Alabama state legislature.

There's a big difference between necessary abortion and casually endangering the life of a fetus you intend to deliver. If we take what you're saying to its conclusion then women can do anything they want to a fetus inside them without consequence. If the fetus is delivered and it has a swarm of mental problems and physical deformities and injuries due to the mother's reckless behavior, oh well, no trouble there. After all, she wasn't harming a child, she was harming a parasitic collection of cells at the time.

So should we then prosecute Sarah Palin? She had a child in her mid-forties, which significantly increases the likelihood of birth defects and miscarriage. Her child was born with Down syndrome- a condition made substantially more likely because she had the child at such a late age. Does that mean she was irresponsible and should be held legally culpable?

But more to the point- this highlights a disturbing trend in how the law approaches pregnancy. The more laws like this are passed and implemented, the more a pregnant woman comes to be viewed not as a human being with rights and agency, but instead as a vessel whose purpose is to carry a fetus. From the perspective of the law, her body is no longer her own; it is commandeered by the state for use as a baby factory.

[ruksak]

There's a big difference between necessary abortion and casually endangering the life of a fetus you intend to deliver. If we take what you're saying to its conclusion then women can do anything they want to a fetus inside them without consequence. If the fetus is delivered and it has a swarm of mental problems and physical deformities and injuries due to the mother's reckless behavior, oh well, no trouble there. After all, she wasn't harming a child, she was harming a parasitic collection of cells at the time.

Very well stated.

In regard to a fetus, a caretakers primary concern is not what it is now, rather, what it will become.

[ruksak]

So should we then prosecute Sarah Palin? She had a child in her mid-forties, which significantly increases the likelihood of birth defects and miscarriage

.

Thats fucking dumber than a bag full of hammers.

Why would you even spew such nonsense?

[Second as Farce]

.

Thats fucking dumber than a bag full of hammers.

Why would you even spew such nonsense?

Your argument: women who do things which endanger the wellbeing of a future child should be held liable for it.

My argument: by your logic, women who have children at an older age (such as Sarah Palin) endanger the wellbeing of their future children by substantially increasing the likelihood of birth defects and should go to jail.

Pretty simple, really.

But, hey, it's cool. Ad homonym attacks are nice too.

[ruksak]

Your argument: women who do things which endanger the wellbeing of a future child should be held liable for it.

My argument: by your logic, women who have children at an older age (such as Sarah Palin) endanger the wellbeing of their future children by substantially increasing the likelihood of birth defects and should go to jail.

Pretty simple, really.

But, hey, it's cool. Ad homonym attacks are nice too.

You're talking apples and oranges. Ingesting narcotic substances to get high and having a baby late in life are both risky in terms of a healthy baby, but there are inherent moral differences.

You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between the two and I must wonder why?

[brendand]

If she is legally entitled to intentionally terminate the pregnancy, what difference does a lack of intention make? Would it have made a difference if the death was prenatal? This is all very strange...

[ruksak]

If she is legally entitled to intentionally terminate the pregnancy, what difference does a lack of intention make? Would it have made a difference if the death was prenatal? This is all very strange...

Had the baby in the OP survived, it would have been retarded and lived a monstrous life. All because mom wanted to get high. There was a bit of luck that the child died as it was spared a life of crippling anguish.

The fact that the child died was a good thing, speaks oodles toward how bad this situation was.