A Crying Baby Is Not Alive?

[SVMc]

Scribbler1 I agree that based on someone POSSIBLY hearing a baby cry it would be mere speculation on our part. However, as I said if there was air in the lungs the baby took at least one breath which would strongly indicate live birth

Agreed, the problem is that we don't know if the baby really cried (indicating air in the lungs while alive) or, if the baby did not cry and the air found in the lungs was the result of decomposition (see my response below to tinybear).

Tinybear "The prosecution's pathologist found that the baby had been born alive because a witness thought he heard it cry for one or two seconds. But the single, short cry the witness thought he heard, if it occurred, may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth."

The problem with this statement is that it's an assertation from the article not from the court transcripts or any reliable testimony (not that there was much reliable first hand testimony in this case). If there was a cry, the baby was probably alive ... but it would be hard to convict someone on "probably". Also, it's definately not certain that there was a cry... and the medical examiners could not conclude if the baby had been born alive. There is nothing in the court documents where any witness claimed with certanity that the baby was alive... some said probably, some said couldn't tell. The sad thing about this case is that we don't really know the facts. The court didn't know the facts which is why the conviction didn't stick.

Dr. Mitra Kalelkar, assistant chief medical examiner for Cook County, admitted that when she completed the autopsy she could not determine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the baby had been born alive. She found no unusual cause of death, so her "suspicion was that the baby drowned." The prosecutor asked Dr. Kalelkar directly whether, at the completion of the autopsy, she "form[ed] an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not the baby was born alive?" Dr. Kalelkar answered: "[A]t that time I had a suspicion that this baby was born alive and that the cause of death would be drowning; and pursuant to that suspicion, which I related to the police officers, I instructed them to investigate further." She later reiterated that after the autopsy she told police she "could not tell for sure whether it had been born alive." Dr. Kalelkar testified that she saw no evidence in the decomposing corpse of any natural disease process. She found air in the lungs, hemorrhage on the skull, and some blood on the umbilical cord. She admitted that the air she found in the lungs could have resulted from decomposition rather than breathing. She also admitted that "[t]here is no specific way of telling whether that rip [of the umbilical cord] was ante mortem or postmortem." Blood may remain in the umbilical cord after the baby dies. While the hemorrhaging suggested that the baby was alive when the head went through the vaginal canal, it did not show that the baby survived the birthing process. On cross-examination Dr. Kalelkar admitted that a baby could die due to partial placental abruption. The baby could go into shock if it lost 60 milliliters of blood in the birthing process. Defendant presented two pathologists. Both agreed with Dr. Kalelkar that the autopsy findings could not support a finding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the baby was born alive. Dr. John Pless testified that the hemorrhage on the skull could occur even if the fetus had already died. If placental abruption killed the fetus shortly before delivery, one would expect findings like those present here. A fall from a tree could cause the placenta to detach from the uterine wall, and the detachment could cause fetal death. The force of the fall need not be great if the trauma occurred at a place that maximized impact on the placenta. The baby could also have died from blood loss in the birthing process or obstruction of the airway. Water and bacteria probably would have eliminated any mucus plugs that might have caused asphyxiation. But Dr. Pless also agreed with Dr. Kalelkar that no marks on the body showed disease or physical injury. Decomposition probably would have eliminated any evidence the baby died from infection. He also agreed that a newborn faces a greater risk of death from asphyxiation or blood loss in an unattended home birth than in a hospital delivery. Dr. Robert Kirschner found sufficient evidence to conclude that the baby was alive when labor began, but he found the evidence insufficient to show that the baby survived labor. Even if the baby was alive at birth, it may have died from failure to clear its airways, blood loss or infection. He said that if a child had marked respiratory distress at the time of birth, it might give a feeble cry, then die. He agreed with the prosecutor that a cry would show live birth. The court expressly found credible King's testimony that he heard a baby cry, and that testimony together with the medical testimony led the court to conclude that the baby was born alive. The court did not comment on the medical testimony that the baby may have died after a live birth from various noncriminal causes, and the court drew no conclusions about what acts caused the death. But the court found that defendant committed murder and sentenced her to 30 years in prison. On appeal defendant argues that the evidence does not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that her baby was born alive. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found live birth beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985).

Again, yes it's a tragedy, yes it is murder if a living breathing baby was killed. But it's not down to if the cord was cut or not, it's down to if the baby was fully born alive and survived the birthing process, did not hemmorage to death from placental seperation, or have additional birthing problems that would have required medical attention available at a hospital but not a home birth.

[SVMc]

Okay now I'm caught up on the rest of the discussion. I think the positions stand as so:

If the baby was out of the womb and alive and did not die from birthing complications and did die by being murdered then it is murder.

If the baby was stillborn it's not murder.

If the baby was not born and was aborted manually then was passed as stillborn it would be abortion then we're into the late term abortion debate.

I think the problem is we really don't know if the baby survived the birthing process... babies die during birth... mothers die during birth (espeically unassisted home births). Even if abortion did become illegal... this case would still fall into a grey area. A fully born alive baby being killed would be murder, abortion would be illegal... I wonder how frequently we would see women claim still born babies. Would making abortion illegal mean that every woman would have to have an OBGYN? Would every woman have to give birth at a hospital to make sure there are professional medical witnesses who can attest the the babies "state of life" after birth? Now I'm in that weird grey area. But that's where this case is... and probably where it will stay.

[Mr.Vicchio]

abortion IS murder so where is the debate on this?

[tinybear]

Not in the USA.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...aaroevwade.htm

[Mr.Vicchio]

Unfortuantnly, that is true... for now.

We'll get it changed. People are starting to realize that a fetus is in fact alive, and thus needs protection from the selfish.

[Pooeypants]

Heh, you sound so certain. What people need protection from are those who want to enforce their will over one's own body. Fascism just won't do.

[tinybear]

What about the baby's body? Who protects and looks after it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tinybear What about the baby's body? Who protects and looks after it?

Define a baby.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: SVMc Agreed, the problem is that we don't know if the baby really cried (indicating air in the lungs while alive) or, if the baby did not cry and the air found in the lungs was the result of decomposition (see my response below to tinybear). .

I'm not a pathologist but if it was indeed air in the lungs it would not be there from decomposition. Methane, yes, but not oxygen/air. Also, I believe it would have to be dead some time before decomposition began. Not 100% sure on that point though.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants Heh, you sound so certain. What people need protection from are those who want to enforce their will over one's own body. Fascism just won't do.

I'm sorry if you think that murdering an innocent human is acceptable.

I for one am against such.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I'm sorry if you think that murdering an innocent human is acceptable. I for one am against such.

I don't that anyone here thinks that. It is just that many here do not think that a single cell is a human either.

Starboy

[Mr.Vicchio]

Single cell? Oh you mean the Zygote immediatly after conception..

Ahh let me look that up for you:

The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form many attached cells. A ball of cells is produced, each cell including a copy of the genes that will guide the development of the baby. Once there are about 32 cells, the developing baby is called a morula. With additional cell division, the morula becomes an outer shell of cells with an attached inner group of cells. Now the developing baby is in the "blastocyst" stage. The outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect the inner group of cells, which will become the embryo (the next stage for the future baby). The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream. http://health.allrefer.com/health/fe...ment-info.html

So a SINGLE cell is okay to kill for you. Okay, that single cell is but a single cell for less then 3 days.

Pray tell,m can you tell me why that single cell is worthy of destruction? And also, name me one cell in the human body that is uniquely different from the host body, other then a zygote.. oh wait you can't.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Pooeypants Define a baby.

I'm not a medical professional, but surely there must come a stage when the foetus assumes the attributes and form of a human being and that must be the stage beyond which termination of the pregnancy amounts to the termination of a human life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the present law permits abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy irrespective of circumstances. That surely can't be right.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I define a human as a unique person.

That definition is met by a Zygote

Case Closed.

[Pooeypants]

So it's okay for you when we go to war and kill tens of thousands of civilians who are fully formed and not just a mass of cells?

[tinybear]

Who said it was OK? Say, isn't this off-topic?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tinybear Who said it was OK? Say, isn't this off-topic?

Well, I know that Mr Vicc supports unprovoked and preemptive war so by putting 2+2...

Regardless, I will adhere to the medical definition, a fetus is not alive until it's own heart is beating.

[Plegmund]

A zygote has its own genetic identity, it's true, Mr Vicchio - but that can't be what makes a person. Identical twins share the same genetic identity (in fact they come from the same zygote) but that doesn't mean they only constitute one person between them.

[Sandy]

I am not a Liberal but a fiscal conservative. I believe that this could be a state problem but most certainly not a federal concern. Since 1973 (R v W) we have known about 30 plus million abortions being performed. That is the number of women who have used the government financed clinics and not the abortions privately performed in Doctor's offices. We will never have a complete count of the numbers!

Bringing the law down on this abortion mess is not the way to stop the problem. It is the way the Conservatives will do it because they want the women punished as severely as possible. There is something within the mind of these religious right conservatives that wants prison, and hardship for all women who dare to "open their legs to men." However, there will be more women in prison within the bible belt states than anywhere else. The religious right should start taking the responsibility for their wayward girls and boys. But that takes too much trouble and they want the the biblical actions of blaming Eve for all sins on the poor unsuspecting males.

It is nobody's damn business what happens to a fetus! If you pro-lifers get your way, millions of women will be in prison on murder charges. What's the point?

Birth control is not 100% and never will be. The answer is the morning after pill but the religious right will refuse to allow the girls to get it without a doctor's appointment so abortion is the next best thing.

If abortion is prohibited it will be the next step under a Police State that America is starting to approach even today. Find another problem or better yet, work with your own kids to stop screwing around when they don't have anything else to do after school. You might try to set some future goals for your kids and teach them self-responsibility.

This whole conservative moment needs to find a cause far more worthy than banning abortions. Open some orphanages that are not financed by the federal government or leave the women alone!

You might try finding a way to get our troops out of harm's way in Iraq and guarantee that they don't enter Iran next.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio abortion IS murder so where is the debate on this?

Wrong, abortion is not murder.

Murder is a legal definition; dishonest pro-life propagandists deliberately ignore this very pertinent fact.