Woman who attempted suicide while pregnant is accused of murder

[Whack-a-Mole]

That is the title of the article linked below.

It does not quite capture the full extent of the unique (near as I have ever heard) circumstances in this case.

Bei Bei Shuai, 34, a restaurant owner who moved to the US from China 10 years ago, was pregnant and planning to marry her boyfriend until she learned late last year that he was already married and he would be abandoning her.

A few days later, on 23 December, she went to a hardware store, bought rat poison pellets, went back to her flat in Indianapolis and swallowed some. But she did not die immediately and was persuaded by friends to go to hospital.

She was given treatment to counteract the poison and gave birth on New Year's Eve, but her daughter, Angel, suffered seizures and died after four days.

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/woman-attempted-suicide-pregnant-accused


Honestly I (personally) have barely begun trying to unravel the issues here in my head so I currently have no opinion one way or another.

However, figured it was debate worthy (i.e. is she guilty of murder) and interested to see what Dopers have to say.

[smellsofgummybears]

It is no more and no less murder than abortion, at least if you subscribe to the traditional viewpoints

(i.e. either "it's a human life" or "her body, her choice")

I don't see how it is any different to be honest. If you believe the former then it's a murder suicide. If the latter then she's under no obligation to do anything to keep the fetus in good shape.

I won't provide my view on abortion as it's irrelevant.

[Whack-a-Mole]

It is no more and no less murder than abortion, at least if you subscribe to the traditional viewpoints

(i.e. either "it's a human life" or "her body, her choice")

I don't see how it is any different to be honest. If you believe the former then it's a murder suicide. If the latter then she's under no obligation to do anything to keep the fetus in good shape.

I won't provide my view on abortion as it's irrelevant.

She poisoned herself late in the pregnancy. Later term elective abortions are not legal.

Further, the baby was born alive then died a few days later as a result of the poisoning.

[Bricker]

Well, the framework laid out in Roe v. Wade said that as a matter of constitutional requirement, the government could not prohibit a woman from choosing to abort during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the government had a more compelling interest, and during the third trimester, the government had a stronger interest in regulating or prohibiting abortion, and held that medically necessary abortions were the only ones protected by the Constitution at that point.

So if you accept that framework, then it would seem the state has the power to criminalize what she did.

[Icarus]

On the one hand, the anti-abortion groups are always looking for cases to push the line on abortion in order to define a fetus as a person. IMHO they do this in order to redefine abortion as murder.

On the other hand - in this case, the article linked does state that the woman gave birth. (Curiously, that portion was not included in the OP?) I will have to say, that changes the discussion enough to avoid the abortion debate. The baby is now a person. The question then becomes - did the woman's actions result in the death of another person. I'm going to have to say yes.

[smellsofgummybears]

Well, the framework laid out in Roe v. Wade said that as a matter of constitutional requirement, the government could not prohibit a woman from choosing to abort during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the government had a more compelling interest, and during the third trimester, the government had a stronger interest in regulating or prohibiting abortion, and held that medically necessary abortions were the only ones protected by the Constitution at that point.

So if you accept that framework, then it would seem the state has the power to criminalize what she did.

Do you think the state could criminalize drinking when pregnant? Should it be illegal to have a child with fetal alcohol syndrome?

[smellsofgummybears]

On the other hand - in this case, the article linked does state that the woman gave birth. (Curiously, that portion was not included in the OP?) I will have to say, that changes the discussion enough to avoid the abortion debate. The baby is now a person. The question then becomes - did the woman's actions result in the death of another person. I'm going to have to say yes.

Now that is madness. That way leads to a couple with recessive genes for something nasty, say Huntingdon's, being murderers!

[zoid]

Now that is madness. That way leads to a couple with recessive genes for something nasty, say Huntingdon's, being murderers!

That's a hell of a leap.

Icarus said "The question then becomes - did the woman's actions result in the death of another person."

See the difference?

[Whack-a-Mole]

On the other hand - in this case, the article linked does state that the woman gave birth. (Curiously, that portion was not included in the OP?)

Yes I did include it.

"She was given treatment to counteract the poison and gave birth on New Year's Eve, but her daughter, Angel, suffered seizures and died after four days."

Go read it again.

[smellsofgummybears]

That's a hell of a leap.

Icarus said "The question then becomes - did the woman's actions result in the death of another person."

See the difference?

But the actions were done to the fetus, not the baby.

[smellsofgummybears]

(sorry, the fetus at best. Although they were done to the woman in actuality)

[smellsofgummybears]

Oh, and I want to be clear, I am only approaching this from a moral, not legal viewpoint. The latter is for the jury frankly.

[Giles]

The daughter became a person when born. The actions of the mother before the birth caused the death of the daughter after the birth. So I can see that it could, legally, be murder. It's certainly not an abortion, because the daughter was born alive, and lived afterward -- she was not stillborn.

Suppose we have the following sequence of events:
(Day 1) Person A places a hidden bomb with a timer, in a place where he expects people to go past in the future.
(Day 2) Mother M gives birth to baby B.
(Day 3) Mother M carries her baby B past the hidden bomb, which explodes as she is walking past, killing baby B.

So, the actions of person A before baby B was born have killed baby B. Is the fact that the actions happened before baby B was born a reason not to consider it murder?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Not sure how if this might apply (and I know this is Kentucky law and the OP is in Indiana) but as a data point:

Women can not be criminally charged for abusing alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that has generated national attention.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s Maternal Health Act of 1992 expressly precludes women from being charged with crimes if they ingest drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.

At issue is whether police and prosecutors were correct in charging Ina Cochran with first-degree wanton endangerment after she gave birth to a child who tested positive for cocaine in 2005.

SOURCE: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/06/17/pregnant-women-can-not-be-charged-for-taking-drugs/

[Tom Tildrum]

Not sure how if this might apply (and I know this is Kentucky law and the OP is in Indiana) but as a data point:

There may be a difference of intent there. A pregnant woman who is drinking alcohol or taking recreational drugs might harm the late-term fetus without understanding or directly intending to do so, while the woman in the OP deliberately took something with the purpose of causing death.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.

[ajb867]

While its very likely the mother's actions are what caused the seizures there really isn't a definitive way to prove that.

[miss elizabeth]

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.

This kind of cruel flippancy does your side of the debate no favors.

The woman in this story was suffering horribly. She ate rat poison for goodness sake! Not exactly the best way to go. Even if what she did could be considered murder (which I disagree with), in my opinion her obvious mental anguish at the time of the act makes her unable to be held responsible.

[Really Not All That Bright]

There may be a difference of intent there. A pregnant woman who is drinking alcohol or taking recreational drugs might harm the late-term fetus without understanding or directly intending to do so, while the woman in the OP deliberately took something with the purpose of causing death.
Her own death, not that of the fetus. Presumably she expected that it would also die, but it's not clear that that was her intent.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

I bet anyone who supports this prosecution of this woman will completely fail to demonstrate how rat poison during pregnancy causes seizures in 4-day olds.

Can strychnine cross the placenta? Anyone?

This case has no basis and will fail miserably.

[Czarcasm]

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.As a Christian, would you be happy if she received the death penalty?

[Whack-a-Mole]

As an aside am I the only one who wants to kick her (former) boyfriend in the balls?

A married guy who leads her on (her not knowing he is already married), impregnates her and then abandons her?

I cannot conceive how we could write a law to bust fuckers like this but he's a serious Grade-A prick. The pain and suffering he has caused here is stunning. I can only hope Karma catches up with him in a big way.

[Icarus]

Yes I did include it.

"She was given treatment to counteract the poison and gave birth on New Year's Eve, but her daughter, Angel, suffered seizures and died after four days."

Go read it again.

Indeed you did, my apologies. I read the linked article and saw the other paragraphs you quoted, but missed that phrase in your quote.

[Whack-a-Mole]

There may be a difference of intent there. A pregnant woman who is drinking alcohol or taking recreational drugs might harm the late-term fetus without understanding or directly intending to do so, while the woman in the OP deliberately took something with the purpose of causing death.

Good point.

But the woman who takes drugs I think we would all say is at the least negligent. Drugs are a poison of sorts and can harm or kill the baby. The intent to kill is not there but the possibility exists hence negligence at the least (IANAL...just IMO).

Yet the law in Kentucky (and I realize that their law does not apply here but more to get at some legal thinking behind all this) is to not hold the mother responsible at all.

In this case I do not think the mother's intention was to kill her baby (*maybe). Her intention was to kill herself. Obviously killing herself would take the unborn child with her. I guess we need an attorney to tell us how intent and state-of-mind might apply here. In this case it is confusing.


*- Part of me wonders if she really meant to kill herself or it was a "cry for help" kind of "suicide" or if she hoped the poison would abort the baby and not kill her. I have no idea but her attempt was sorta half-assed and she chose to go to the hospital to be sorted out and live. All guesses and supposition on my part...I have no clue. Just food for thought.

[foolsguinea]

I see this as a mental health issue. I wouldn't prosecute any case against the woman, because to do so would be an act of unwarranted douchery.

It would serve the prosecutor right if he suddenly suffered a horrifying neurological event in public. Unfortunately, karma does not exist.

Note that I am not claiming that she was legally insane, I'm claiming that it's humane to make allowances for severe emotional distress rather than to prosecute charges against attempted suicides.

[Grumman]

I bet anyone who supports this prosecution of this woman will completely fail to demonstrate how rat poison during pregnancy causes seizures in 4-day olds.
What are you asking for, a double-blind study?

[Farmer Jane]

She poisoned herself late in the pregnancy. Later term elective abortions are not legal.

Further, the baby was born alive then died a few days later as a result of the poisoning.

But a doctor didn't do it. She did.

[Farmer Jane]

medically necessary abortions

Curious...if a woman is going to go mental for being pregnant, couldn't that be considered a medically necessary abortion? :o

[Farmer Jane]

I bet anyone who supports this prosecution of this woman will completely fail to demonstrate how rat poison during pregnancy causes seizures in 4-day olds.

Can strychnine cross the placenta? Anyone?

This case has no basis and will fail miserably.

Rodenticides: Convulsants

Crimidine, strychnine, and sodium fluroroacetate and fluroracetamide are convulsants. The chemicals act on the heart and nervous systems through heart arrhythmia and interruption of breathing. According to information from the University of Missouri, as little as 15 mg of strychnine can kill a child.

Read more: Rat Poison & Its Effect on Infants | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5916501_rat-_amp_-its-effect-infants.html#ixzz1Jf051cwJ


While I'm not sure that strychnine crosses the placenta for sure, I'd guess so. Seizures can also happen when someone "comes off" an overdose.

*shudder* I had an allergic reaction once to neuroleptics that caused horrible horrible seizures and 'awake' tonic seizures and partial paralysis and uuggghhhhhhhh rat poisoning has to be the worst thing possible. It took weeks to recover. I almost didn't graduate. *shudder* I hope that poor infant didn't feel much. :/

*edit Foeticide is now a word?

[Whack-a-Mole]

But a doctor didn't do it. She did.

Does it matter?

Legally?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Curious...if a woman is going to go mental for being pregnant, couldn't that be considered a medically necessary abortion? :o

So just claim, "I woulda gone insane!" and after that do what you want?

Too easy to abuse.

[Farmer Jane]

Does it matter?

Legally?

Euthanasia is illegal.

Doctor assisted suicide is not.

So yes, sometimes it does matter who pulled the trigger. :o

[Bryan Ekers]

It's not clear to me what the value of punishing her is.

[Farmer Jane]

So just claim, "I woulda gone insane!" and after that do what you want?

Too easy to abuse.

Abuse? No, I was kind of playing devil's advocate and picking on Bricker a little bit.

[Whack-a-Mole]

It's not clear to me what the value of punishing her is.

What's the value of punishing anyone?

Personally I agree that sending her to jail will not prevent another "crime" of the same sort as this.

Sending people to jail is not about "value". It is about punishing them for a wrong that society deems "bad".

Note I am still on the fence about this myself. More Devil's Advocate at this point.

[Zoe]

CitizenPained: Curious...if a woman is going to go mental for being pregnant, couldn't that be considered a medically necessary abortion?

Yes indeed. But she can't just proclaim that it will drive her crazy. Since "going mental" is a health issue, a doctor would have to certify that continuing the pregnancy would be dangerous to her health (or possibly her life). I wouldn't think a physician would be likely to do that unless she had a history of mental illness.

The irony is that if the physician thinks that she is likely to attempt suicide, then the pregnancy is dangerous to her health and life and that is a reason to terminate a late stage pregnancy. This was true even before Roe vs Wade.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The irony is that if the physician thinks that she is likely to attempt suicide, then the pregnancy is dangerous to her health and life and that is a reason to terminate a late stage pregnancy. This was true even before Roe vs Wade.

True.

But what we know of this case (admittedly little with only the one article to go on) my sense is she wanted the baby and was looking forward to a life with the guy and making a family. The guy yanked the rug from under her and she lost her mind (understandably).

Point being is she would be deemed mentally stable and happy till her world collapsed around her. Most people would have a hard time with what she went through (then again most people wouldn't eat rat poison as a result).

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

What are you asking for, a double-blind study?

No. I am asking for evidence that strychnine poisoning lasts for 12 days, and that the doctor's treatments of the infant's seizures were geared toward treating strichnyne poisoning (evidence they suspected the seizures were consistent with poisoning). In other words, I want evidence linking the woman's behavior to the death of the child. A superficial similarity does not establish cause and effect.

While I'm not sure that strychnine crosses the placenta for sure, I'd guess so. Seizures can also happen when someone "comes off" an overdose.

*shudder* I had an allergic reaction once to neuroleptics that caused horrible horrible seizures and 'awake' tonic seizures and partial paralysis and uuggghhhhhhhh rat poisoning has to be the worst thing possible. It took weeks to recover. I almost didn't graduate. *shudder* I hope that poor infant didn't feel much. :/

*edit Foeticide is now a word?

Unknown #1 is whether strychnine can act as a teratogen. I am hoping more than a "guess" is being used to prosecute this unfortunate person.

I think the kid would have died of seizures regardless. There is no medical evidence that a dose of strychnine has this kind of long-term effect on infants or adults. A lethal dose of strychnine is lethal via paralysis of the diaphram or exhaustion within hours, not days.

[Farmer Jane]

Yes indeed. But she can't just proclaim that it will drive her crazy. Since "going mental" is a health issue, a doctor would have to certify that continuing the pregnancy would be dangerous to her health (or possibly her life). I wouldn't think a physician would be likely to do that unless she had a history of mental illness.

The irony is that if the physician thinks that she is likely to attempt suicide, then the pregnancy is dangerous to her health and life and that is a reason to terminate a late stage pregnancy. This was true even before Roe vs Wade.

I agree on a personal level, but I wasn't sure if there was legal precedent.

But if a woman wants to kill herself, is it not reasonable to assume she's in no mental state to understand the possible outcomes of a failed suicide? Or even a successful one?

[Farmer Jane]

[QUOTE=Inbred Mm domesticus;13694008]No. I am asking for evidence that strychnine poisoning lasts for 12 days, and that the doctor's treatments of the infant's seizures were geared toward treating strichnyne poisoning (evidence they suspected the seizures were consistent with poisoning). In other words, I want evidence linking the woman's behavior to the death of the child. A superficial similarity does not establish cause and effect.

I'm sure you'll get your answers in the trial.

Unknown #1 is whether strychnine can act as a teratogen. I am hoping more than a "guess" is being used to prosecute this unfortunate person.

Woah, woah. I am not the DA and all I did was put forth a guess. That's it. There has to be a Doper here who can help you with that one.

I think the kid would have died of seizures regardless. There is no medical evidence that a dose of strychnine has this kind of long-term effect on infants or adults. A lethal dose of strychnine is lethal via paralysis of the diaphram or exhaustion within hours, not days.

So you think the infant would have had seizures even if the mother hadn't overdosed? Why? Clearly the intake was not enough to kill the mother (though we know she had treatment, so I'm not sure exactly the specifics there) but that doesn't mean that if the strychnine crossed to the placenta it couldn't have long term effects (if you consider 12 days to be long term).

If your eyes don't glaze over, this (http://books.google.com/books?id=LjNh9ASGehUC&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=strychnine+fetus&source=bl&ots=VYHyuGN1Tb&sig=7yDJWFIYLcM11T_vdQi50u-pauA&hl=en&ei=lD2pTaOJBYq8sQOrlsz5DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) may provide some clues...?

Or toxicity in rats (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9X-4H4T32T-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd428fb1bf024a49bca6ce07e1bfbc34&searchtype=a), perhaps?

Administering strychnine, a potent antagonist of glycine receptors, to pregnant rats caused marked toxic effects on the ensuing embryos. The embryotoxic effects of strychnine were compared with those induced by retinal palmitate during rat neurulation; and it was found that strychnine was stronger than retinal palmitate in a number of abnormalities such as anencephaly, general aplasy and abnormal cerebral vesicles. Although the glycine receptor β1 subunit mRNA was found to be expressed in the embryos when strychnine was administered to the mother rats, its presence may not fully account for the toxic effects and it may be that strychnine is targeting also other molecules, such as the nicotinic receptor that has been found early in development.

Did the infant go into status epilepticus? Also, a fetus can have seizures in utero. Example, though I'm sure I can find more. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2580021/)

[Whack-a-Mole]

I think the kid would have died of seizures regardless. There is no medical evidence that a dose of strychnine has this kind of long-term effect on infants or adults. A lethal dose of strychnine is lethal via paralysis of the diaphram or exhaustion within hours, not days.

Well, you are guessing here too (we all are...we are missing a lot of data).

The placental barrier is not some magical barrier. We know that various drugs can affect a fetus.

I do not know (read that again) that rat poison can breach that barrier but I'd be kinda surprised if it had no effect on the fetus.

I do not know how you treat strychnine poisoning but it is possible those treatments could have an effect too.

Correlation is not causation and till someone with the resume to speak authoritatively shows up we can't know for sure.

For my part I'd be surprised if eating rat poison wouldn't affect a fetus but I admit I really do not know.

[Farmer Jane]

Well, you are guessing here too (we all are...we are missing a lot of data).

The placental barrier is not some magical barrier. We know that various drugs can affect a fetus.

I do not know (read that again) that rat poison can breach that barrier but I'd be kinda surprised if it had no effect on the fetus.

I do not know how you treat strychnine poisoning but it is possible those treatments could have an effect too.

Correlation is not causation and till someone with the resume to speak authoritatively shows up we can't know for sure.

For my part I'd be surprised if eating rat poison wouldn't affect a fetus but I admit I really do not know.

I think it's completely fair to speculate or guess and be honest about it. It seems as though Inbred Mm domesticus has taken the mantle of apologist for this woman.

[Odesio]

Note that I am not claiming that she was legally insane, I'm claiming that it's humane to make allowances for severe emotional distress rather than to prosecute charges against attempted suicides.

Isn't one of the reason we have trials so that a jury has the option of making such allowances?

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

So you think the infant would have had seizures even if the mother hadn't overdosed? Why? Clearly the intake was not enough to kill the mother (though we know she had treatment, so I'm not sure exactly the specifics there) but that doesn't mean that if the strychnine crossed to the placenta it couldn't have long term effects (if you consider 12 days to be long term).

My primary 'Why?' is logic based on my knowledge of the drug. A very nice example of treating strychnine poisoning and strychnine's metabolism is provided here: it's only 2 pages and an easy read (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1705440/?page=1). My secondary 'Why?' is provided by you:

If your eyes don't glaze over, this (http://books.google.com/books?id=LjNh9ASGehUC&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=strychnine+fetus&source=bl&ots=VYHyuGN1Tb&sig=7yDJWFIYLcM11T_vdQi50u-pauA&hl=en&ei=lD2pTaOJBYq8sQOrlsz5DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) may provide some clues...?

On the page you linked to and the page prior, the authors state there is a neonatal and adult form of the glycine receptor. The neonatal form has a low affinity (doesn't bind well to and requires a higher concentration of strychnine to be anatagonized) for strychnine and they even cite an example where strychnine had no effect on neonatal mice (last full paragraph on the page).

That said, their citations primarily concern rodents and there is not a one-to-one relationship between stages in human and rodent gestation.

Or toxicity in rats (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9X-4H4T32T-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd428fb1bf024a49bca6ce07e1bfbc34&searchtype=a), perhaps?

That is neurulation (http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap14/Chapter_14.html). That's equivalent to the beginning of nervous system development, while the infant was in the last stages of nervous system development.

Did the infant go into status epilepticus? Also, a fetus can have seizures in utero. URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2580021/"]Example, though I'm sure I can find more.[/URL]

I agree. I also think it had a series of them at birth due to a birth defect, but I see no reason to believe that birth defect was the result of strychnine.

Well, you are guessing here too (we all are...we are missing a lot of data).

The placental barrier is not some magical barrier. We know that various drugs can affect a fetus.

I do not know (read that again) that rat poison can breach that barrier but I'd be kinda surprised if it had no effect on the fetus.

I do not know how you treat strychnine poisoning but it is possible those treatments could have an effect too.

Correlation is not causation and till someone with the resume to speak authoritatively shows up we can't know for sure.

For my part I'd be surprised if eating rat poison wouldn't affect a fetus but I admit I really do not know.

I have the background to be making educated guesses and I really don't see it. Hopefully the links I provided and those provided by CitizenPained make my hesitation to accept the prosecution's hypothesis clearer.

I think it's completely fair to speculate or guess and be honest about it. It seems as though Inbred Mm domesticus has taken the mantle of apologist for this woman.

I am not an apologist I think, I see the how the link between the strychnine poisoning and the newborn's seizures feel like they should logically be there, but it wasn't there for me and the reasons include:
1) no drug around by the time the baby was born
2) a really effective dose probably would have killed the infant perinatally
3) the right glycine receptor was probably not expressed yet (not 100% on it)

[Farmer Jane]

I am not an apologist I think, I see the how the link between the strychnine poisoning and the newborn's seizures feel like they should logically be there, but it wasn't there for me and the reasons include:
1) no drug around by the time the baby was born
2) a really effective dose probably would have killed the infant perinatally
3) the right glycine receptor was probably not expressed yet (not 100% on it)

Thanks for the info. Like I said, I'm sure we'll all find out. If the strychnine did cause neonatal seizures, is it possible that those seizures resulted in brain damage? I guess what I'm wondering is

- if the strychnine (and its counter treatments) affected the fetus negatively
- isn't it possible that the effects were permanent? or at least 'long term'?
- because the fetus would have suffered neural damage (lack of oxygen, the strychnine itself, and 10823290 things I don't know for lack of being an MD)

While I don't think the poor woman should be charged for murder, I do agree with a criminal charge of some kind, be it child endangerment or abuse. Unfortunately (?) the child was born, lived, and (presumably) suffered.

[Farmer Jane]

Wait -- if the mother had been given a ton of neuroleptics, is it possible the infant was in withdrawal? From what I remember, nearly every major anti convulsant on the market was known to cause risks to the fetus.

So if the strychnine didn't affect the fetus, the treatment may have. Things like Diazepam, Tegretol, etc, all cross the placenta. I usually hear about facial deformities and such, but who knows. If the infant was in withdrawal or suffered CNS damage, it is not surprising it had seizures.

[Gorsnak]

Wait -- if the mother had been given a ton of neuroleptics, is it possible the infant was in withdrawal? From what I remember, nearly every major anti convulsant on the market was known to cause risks to the fetus.

So if the strychnine didn't affect the fetus, the treatment may have. Things like Diazepam, Tegretol, etc, all cross the placenta. I usually hear about facial deformities and such, but who knows. If the infant was in withdrawal or suffered CNS damage, it is not surprising it had seizures.

Well that's it, then. Charge the doctors with murder.

[WhyNot]

I bet anyone who supports this prosecution of this woman will completely fail to demonstrate how rat poison during pregnancy causes seizures in 4-day olds.

Can strychnine cross the placenta? Anyone?

This case has no basis and will fail miserably.

No. I am asking for evidence that strychnine poisoning lasts for 12 days, and that the doctor's treatments of the infant's seizures were geared toward treating strichnyne poisoning (evidence they suspected the seizures were consistent with poisoning). In other words, I want evidence linking the woman's behavior to the death of the child. A superficial similarity does not establish cause and effect.

First of all, do we know it was strychnine? When I hear "rat poison", I think of anticoagulants (a massive overdose of coumadin), which does cross the placental barrier and could easily have caused bleeding in the brain of the fetus. Increased intercranial pressure from the bleeding or scarring from the healing of the bleed in the brain could absolutely cause seizures at a later date.

But let's go with strychnine. Say it began to paralyze the mother's diaphragm before she got treated. She's now short of breath and short of oxygen. The first place a pregnant woman's body vasoconstricts, to shunt blood and oxygen to her brain and heart, is the umbilical artery. That means the fetus is deprived of oxygen in her brain. A history of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) in the brain can also cause seizures at a later date. And it need not cross the placental barrier to do so (although I believe it does cross, regardless.)

It's absolutely plausible that "rat poison" could later cause fatal seizures in the fetus.

[Hamlet]

It's not clear to me what the value of punishing her is.She may have murdered someone? Is this a trick question? Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation?

[Saint Cad]

Morally: I think she was not thinking rationally <lines up to kick the boyfriend in the nards> and the question becomes one of intent. Did she try to kill herself or herself and the baby? Or as someone pointed out, maybe she was trying to abort (she was from China. Does anyone know the traditional way to abort a fetus in China?). Without more info, I'm inclined to give her a pass.

Legally: IANAL but unless there is a law against third trimester attempted abortions in Indiana, I don't think she can be prosecuted for what she did to the baby before she was born. It is funadamental to Roe v. Wade that a fetus does not have rights under the 14th Amendment until it is born. We can certainly argue if this also means that a person that causes a woman to have a miscarriage can legally be held accountable for causing the fetus' death (murder or manslaughter). But in this case, I think the state cannot hold her for the death. To be honest, as long as abortions by lethally injecting the fetus with saline are legal (are they in Indiana?) then this cannot be murder.

Soapbox: The laws in this country, both Federally and at a state level are too contradictory to ever answer a question like this. Is the fetus a human? If a woman is walking into Planned Parenthood? No. If some nutjob hits her in the womb with a baseball bat while she walks into Planned Parenthood? Yes. On Day 90? No. On Day 91? Maybe. On Day 181? Probably or possibly or maybe or no. When Mom is in an HOV lane? According to urban legend (so may be true or not)? Yes. Before 2003, you could even yank the fetus' head out into world before killing it (and I am pro-choice).
Can we at least get some sembalance of consistancy.

[Kobal2]

She may have murdered someone? Is this a trick question? Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation?

Retribution for or from whom ? The boyfriend clearly didn't give a shit about the baby. There's no grieving widow or pale faced orphan to avenge here. Nobody's going to get closure or a misplaced sense of justice from killing her or sending her to the pokey.

Deterrence ? She tried to kill herself. It's not like further consequences were on her mind. Had a police officer-like angel whispered in her ear (or that of any like-minded woman) "don't do this, you'll go to jail !" at the time it wouldn't have changed her disposition, would it ? I won't even touch the irony of getting the death penalty for an attempted suicide - too easy.

Incapacitation ? The baby's dead. That's done. She's not going to feed other pregnant women rat poison, or get pregnant again just so she can drop more rat poison for kicks, I don't think.

Rehabilitation ? From what, her long career in baby-killing ? Yeah, a couple years amongst actual crooks and killers is a great idea for that. I'm sure she'll come out much better adjusted and won't try to kill herself so much after a decade of forced cohabitation with Large Marge.

It's a positively horrible story, and I really don't feel nor think anything can be done to make it less so, but especially not by throwing the book at her. Get her a shrink or twelve, possibly a prolonged stay in a nice laughing academymental institution until she's learned to process the pain and move on (not that she really ever will), and that's that.

[jtgain]

Scott Peterson immediately comes to mind here. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder because his wife was pregnant.

I'm wondering how laws work in jurisdictions that prohibit late term abortions and the woman has one anyways. Is it a murder charge or an "illegal abortion at too late of a late term" charge? I think that should guide this prosecution.

In other words, what if this woman said, "Fuck the law, I want an abortion." She then finds a doctor who performs it for her. What would she and the doctor be charged with?

[Hamlet]

Retribution for or from whom ? The boyfriend clearly didn't give a shit about the baby. There's no grieving widow or pale faced orphan to avenge here. Nobody's going to get closure or a misplaced sense of justice from killing her or sending her to the pokey.Is this another trick question? Retribution for killing a child. It doesn't matter if it's her child, she still doesn't get to murder it. We don't let single mothers kill their children.

Deterrence ? She tried to kill herself. It's not like further consequences were on her mind. Had a police officer-like angel whispered in her ear (or that of any like-minded woman) "don't do this, you'll go to jail !" at the time it wouldn't have changed her disposition, would it ? I won't even touch the irony of getting the death penalty for an attempted suicide - too easy.Ummm, deterence is both general and specific. In this case, charging her will likely deter her from getting pregnant and murdering that child. It may also deter other mothers by convincing them to get help before they kill their child.

Incapacitation ? The baby's dead. That's done. She's not going to feed other pregnant women rat poison, or get pregnant again just so she can drop more rat poison for kicks, I don't think. She may well get pregnant again.

Rehabilitation ? From what, her long career in baby-killing ? Yeah, a couple years amongst actual crooks and killers is a great idea for that. I'm sure she'll come out much better adjusted and won't try to kill herself so much after a decade of forced cohabitation with Large Marge.She can get help.

It's a positively horrible story, and I really don't feel nor think anything can be done to make it less so, but especially not by throwing the book at her. Get her a shrink or twelve, possibly a prolonged stay in a nice laughing academymental institution until she's learned to process the pain and move on (not that she really ever will), and that's that.If she's mentally ill, by all means incapacitate her and get her the help she needs to be rehabilitated.

[foolsguinea]

Isn't one of the reason we have trials so that a jury has the option of making such allowances?Prosecutors also have discretion not to pursue cases. In this case, there is no serious risk of recidivism, and going to trial is just piling on a woman who has suffered two enormous losses in a year. Is this the best use of the court's time? Or is it an exercise in moralistically whipping a person of "targetable" social standing?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

As a Christian, would you be happy if she received the death penalty?

Curious...if a woman is going to go mental for being pregnant, couldn't that be considered a medically necessary abortion? :o

No, its the life of the mother not some melancholy.

This kind of cruel flippancy does your side of the debate no favors.

The woman in this story was suffering horribly. She ate rat poison for goodness sake! Not exactly the best way to go. Even if what she did could be considered murder (which I disagree with), in my opinion her obvious mental anguish at the time of the act makes her unable to be held responsible.

By that sort of logic you can say all murderers are mentally ill because it is truly unusual that anyone should take another human life for little or no reason and thus they should not be punished.

Perhaps she was willing to inflict pain on others even at the expense of herself.

It's not clear to me what the value of punishing her is.


As an act of justice.

[Czarcasm]

If she's mentally ill, by all means incapacitate her and get her the help she needs to be rehabilitated.The prison system isn't set up for mental illness, let alone rehabilitation. This is the last place to look to help her.

[Czarcasm]

No, its the life of the mother not some melancholy.



By that sort of logic you can say all murderers are mentally ill because it is truly unusual that anyone should take another human life for little or no reason and thus they should not be punished.

Perhaps she was willing to inflict pain on others even at the expense of herself.

As an act of justice.I was going to say that you didn't answer my question, but reading further I think that, sadly, you have.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

As a Christian, would you be happy if she received the death penalty?

No. I don't think most death penalty supporters-Christian or otherwise- are truly glad if a murderer is executed. However it is necessary for justice/

[WhyNot]

Perhaps she was willing to inflict pain on others even at the expense of herself.

Perhaps. If so, I could see charging her with something like "Attempting to perform a medical procedure without a medical license." That is, an abortion. DIY abortions should be discouraged; they're not safe.

Her intent would be key, of course. Did she try to kill herself, or did she try to kill her fetus? The first is suicide, the second is abortion. Neither one is attempting to kill a legal (or spiritual, IMHO, but of course we can go many rounds on that debate) person other than herself. She didn't attempt or succeed at killing the (legal, spiritual, unarguable) person lying in the NICU after her birth.

That's what RvW found, ultimately - that legally, a fetus isn't a person. The laws making the killing of a fetus a murder violate that, IMHO. If those were overturned as they should be, there'd be no precedent for this case. That's why they're a bad idea.

[Contrapuntal]

I can't see any usefulness in charging her with murder. Hell, around here anyone who with "suicidal ideations" is presumed to be mentally ill. I'd say she went a step or two beyond ideations.

[Czarcasm]

No. I don't think most death penalty supporters-Christian or otherwise- are truly glad if a murderer is executed. However it is necessary for justice/Have you ever considered dipping into the New Testament for guidance once in a while?
Just sayin'.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Have you ever considered dipping into the New Testament for guidance once in a while?
Just sayin'.

Romans 13:4

For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

[The Tooth]

The bible is irrelevant because God isn't real. Please keep in mind that not everyone turns to bronze-age myths for guidance on right and wrong. Do you really think that justice is impossible in countries without a death penalty?

[WhyNot]

The bible is irrelevant because God isn't real.
The Bible is not remotely irrelevant when asking a self-professed Christian how he feels as a Christian about the death penalty.

It's a total hijack of the thread, but it's not irrelevant to the question.

[Kobal2]

Is this another trick question? Retribution for killing a child. It doesn't matter if it's her child, she still doesn't get to murder it. We don't let single mothers kill their children.

Trick ? No, not a trick question in the sense that I wasn't laying a rhetorical trap on you, Bricker-style. It is however tricky for me to figure out the point of retribution in absolute. The dead don't care - only the living do. The people left behind, or those harmed by a given crime (be it physical, spiritual or material harm), they can be helped by this idea of retribution, yes. That at least makes some sense to me.

Retribution for its own sake on the other hand doesn't really. I don't quite see what purpose it could serve, neither for the persons involved in this particular case nor in the grand scheme of things.

Ummm, deterence is both general and specific. In this case, charging her will likely deter her from getting pregnant and murdering that child. It may also deter other mothers by convincing them to get help before they kill their child.

It's not like she was doing it for the kicks, you know. Pretty sure there's no percentage in getting suicidal.
As for deterrence to others, as I've already said when you've reached a point where you're popping rat poison, the rest of the world and what it thinks or could do to you if you miss yourself doesn't really matter any more, does it ?

She may well get pregnant again.

That she may. So what ? It wasn't the pregnancy itself that drove her to this extremity. If a psych exam determines she's likely to "revisit the scene of her crime" as it were, then you may have a point. From where I'm standing however, I really don't see a second strike coming any time soon.

She can get help.

Not in prison she can't. Even less so on the chair.

[The Tooth]

The Bible is not remotely irrelevant when asking a self-professed Christian how he feels as a Christian about the death penalty.

It's a total hijack of the thread, but it's not irrelevant to the question.

Hah, fair enough. I'd still like to know if he thinks justice is possible in a country without the death penalty, though.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

First of all, do we know it was strychnine? When I hear "rat poison", I think of anticoagulants (a massive overdose of coumadin), which does cross the placental barrier and could easily have caused bleeding in the brain of the fetus. Increased intercranial pressure from the bleeding or scarring from the healing of the bleed in the brain could absolutely cause seizures at a later date.

Your post made me go look it up and I see that I had something new to learn: rat poison probably does not contain strychnine (I can't even tell if it is legal in the USA). Browsing about anti-coagulants showed they are supposed to take an extended period of time to kill the rat. I had always thought rat poison was basically strychnine. I had no idea, thanks.

[WhyNot]

Your post made me go look it up and I see that I had something new to learn: rat poison probably does not contain strychnine (I can't even tell if it is legal in the USA). Browsing about anti-coagulants showed they are supposed to take an extended period of time to kill the rat. I had always thought rat poison was basically strychnine. I had no idea, thanks.

You're welcome. The "antidote" as it were, is massive amounts of Vitamin K. The anticoagulant in rat poison blocks the action of Vitamin K, and makes it so the blood can't clot. If we can get the patient enough Vitamin K, there's not enough anticoagulant to block it all, and the patient's body can form blood clots again. A lot of damage can happen in the meantime, though, from bleeding in the gut, the brain, the liver, the kidneys, out any cuts you might get, from any varicose veins or hemorrhoids, etc. Ugly, ugly way to die. I wouldn't wish it on...well, a rat, much less a person.

[Hamlet]

The prison system isn't set up for mental illness, let alone rehabilitation. This is the last place to look to help her.That's why if someone is found mentally ill and not responsible for their actions, they don't go to prison, they go into a mental health treatment facility.

[Hamlet]

Trick ? No, not a trick question in the sense that I wasn't laying a rhetorical trap on you, Bricker-style. It is however tricky for me to figure out the point of retribution in absolute. The dead don't care - only the living do. The people left behind, or those harmed by a given crime (be it physical, spiritual or material harm), they can be helped by this idea of retribution, yes. That at least makes some sense to me.The reasons I gave for her punishment are the same used generally in every criminal justice case. They're the four main justifications we have punishment in our criminal justice system; the big four you spend a couple days debating in Crim Law 101. Some apply better than others, some don't apply at all, it depends on the case. But the point I was making was that I didn't see any real difference between this case and any other case. I didn't mean to start a debate about the propriety of punishments in general, which you seem to want to engage in. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

If you wish to debate the justifications for any punishment, have at it. But outside of the mental illness issue, I don't really see this case as so special the rationale's for punishment don't count.

[Farmer Jane]

Have you ever considered dipping into the New Testament for guidance once in a while?
Just sayin'.

Jewish law allows for abortion in cases of mental illness. :o

[Farmer Jane]

Am I the only one here who thinks that you have the right to end your own life?

[WhyNot]

Am I the only one here who thinks that you have the right to end your own life?

No, you're not. But I'm not seeing where it's relevant in this thread, either.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Hah, fair enough. I'd still like to know if he thinks justice is possible in a country without the death penalty, though.

The bible is irrelevant because God isn't real. Please keep in mind that not everyone turns to bronze-age myths for guidance on right and wrong. Do you really think that justice is impossible in countries without a death penalty?

I don't think complete justice is acheived without death for murderers but I don't think complete justice is possible in this world either.

Jewish law allows for abortion in cases of mental illness. :o

Which is largely traditions of the Pharisees or other sects.

[Farmer Jane]

No, you're not. But I'm not seeing where it's relevant in this thread, either.

It's relevant because she wanted to end her own life. She failed and possibly caused the death of an infant. If she had succeeded we'd all just tsk tsk at the tragedy and go kick her boyfriend in the nuts.

[Farmer Jane]

Which is largely traditions of the Pharisees or other sects.

What, like Judaism in the last 1,500 years? :confused:

*edit: If you look closely at Leviticus (I believe that'd be the book you call it), you'll find that Jewish law is not unlike the Supreme Court - at certain points a fetus is more of a human than a fetus.

edit: It's Exodus.

[WhyNot]

It's relevant because she wanted to end her own life. She failed and possibly caused the death of an infant. If she had succeeded we'd all just tsk tsk at the tragedy and go kick her boyfriend in the nuts.

But no one's taking her to task - here or in the courts - for the attempt at taking her own life. It's the consequences it had on the fetus that are bringing her before the judge and being discussed in this thread now.

[The Tooth]

I don't think complete justice is acheived without death for murderers but I don't think complete justice is possible in this world either.

Well, life isn't fair. As for this poor woman, execution will accomplish nothing. In the broader sense, capital punishment isn't a deterrent, is more expensive than imprisonment, and results in the deaths of innocents due to your justice system being less than perfect. This has been gone over a thousand times.

Besides, her death will not result in "complete justice" however you choose to define it. You just said so. Complete justice is not possible in this world, you said.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Well, life isn't fair. As for this poor woman, execution will accomplish nothing. In the broader sense, capital punishment isn't a deterrent, is more expensive than imprisonment, and results in the deaths of innocents due to your justice system being less than perfect. This has been gone over a thousand times.

Besides, her death will not result in "complete justice" however you choose to define it. You just said so. Complete justice is not possible in this world, you said.

Which is why I am skeptical of the death penalty. Although if the woman was executed in this case assuming she is guilty of the crime, it would be an individual case of complete justice.

[Bryan Ekers]

She may have murdered someone? Is this a trick question? Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation?

It's not clear to me how significant any of those are in this case, especially deterrence. Rehabilitation, maybe, in the sense of getting her some mental health treatment.

[WhyNot]

It's not clear to me how significant any of those are in this case, especially deterrence. Rehabilitation, maybe, in the sense of getting her some mental health treatment.

But does she need to be found guilty of a crime in a court of law to get mental health treatment for a suicide and the grief of having (probably) indirectly causing the death of her baby? If so, that's a sad indictment of our mental health system.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Which is why I am skeptical of the death penalty. Although if the woman was executed in this case assuming she is guilty of the crime, it would be an individual case of complete justice.

IANAL and certainly not conversant with Indiana law (do they even have a death penalty?) but what little I know I would seriously doubt whatever comes of this that it'd be a death penalty case. Such cases have very specific and very narrow criteria for a DA to even think they have a death penalty case. I'd be shocked if this case rose to that level.

Even then the DA can generally use discretion and not force the death penalty as a result.

I think juries, while usually never told about possible outcomes (sentencing) are told if they are on a death penalty case (I may be wrong, just my understanding). I cannot see a DA going for a death penalty in this case even if it were possible (which I seriously doubt it is).

[elfkin477]

Retribution for or from whom ? The boyfriend clearly didn't give a shit about the baby. There's no grieving widow or pale faced orphan to avenge here. Nobody's going to get closure or a misplaced sense of justice from killing her or sending her to the pokey. Neat. I suppose homeless people, orphans in group homes, and the elderly who have out lived their loved ones are also fair game because there's no one to actively mourn them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

After thinking on this awhile my opinion is this woman needs help, not a prison sentence.

Whether that help involves criminal prosecution that mandates treatment or just a strong suggestion than she get therapy I am not sure of.

What it does seem like to me is an opportunity for the the anti-abortion movement to score a point.

As if there is not enough misery in this case already that they'd add to it to advance their agenda seems just one more horror to add to the pile.

This woman has been through enough. It'll be hard enough for her to get on with life after this as is. This is adding insult to injury.

[Bryan Ekers]

But does she need to be found guilty of a crime in a court of law to get mental health treatment for a suicide and the grief of having (probably) indirectly causing the death of her baby? If so, that's a sad indictment of our mental health system.

Well, that's Congress for ya....


But seriously, no. I don't see why the criminal justice system has to be involved.

[yorick73]

Your post made me go look it up and I see that I had something new to learn: rat poison probably does not contain strychnine (I can't even tell if it is legal in the USA). Browsing about anti-coagulants showed they are supposed to take an extended period of time to kill the rat. I had always thought rat poison was basically strychnine. I had no idea, thanks.

FWIW this article states that the coroner determined the cause of death was the mother's ingestion of the poison:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42116782/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Unrelated, but why do you think a chemical has to be a teratogen to cause death of the fetus? I would think a poison is good enough to do the job without causing a birth defect.

[Kobal2]

Neat. I suppose homeless people, orphans in group homes, and the elderly who have out lived their loved ones are also fair game because there's no one to actively mourn them.

There're still the other 3 principles, you know.

Besides, your immediate next of kin aren't the only people who can be harmed by your dying - friends count just as much. (also, homeless people have no family ? I guess they must sprout from the pavement in winter or something)

[Whack-a-Mole]

Unrelated, but why do you think a chemical has to be a teratogen to cause death of the fetus? I would think a poison is good enough to do the job without causing a birth defect.

Wouldn't a defect take time to manifest itself?

Seems to me all this happened in (relatively) short order.

- Take poison
- Get treatment soon after
- Give birth within a few days
- Baby dies four days later

Maybe the term "birth defect" has me hung up (medical definition versus layman's definition).

[Kobal2]

Which is why I am skeptical of the death penalty. Although if the woman was executed in this case assuming she is guilty of the crime, it would be an individual case of complete justice.

You can't be against the death penalty "except in some cases where it's complete justice", bro (whatever the hell complete justice may mean). That's called being for the death penalty.

[yorick73]

Wouldn't a defect take time to manifest itself?

Seems to me all this happened in (relatively) short order.

- Take poison
- Get treatment soon after
- Give birth within a few days
- Baby dies four days later

Maybe the term "birth defect" has me hung up (medical definition versus layman's definition).

That's my point. A teratogen is something that disturbs the development of a fetus. Think thalidomide. A poison can kill quickly or over a period of time.

Inbred Mm domesticus asked what evidence exists that rat poison is a teratogen. I don't know if he/she is confusing the term or believes that something must be a teratogen to cause the death of a fetus.

[heavyarms553]

In my opinion, this poor woman has suffered enough.

[Czarcasm]

You can't be against the death penalty "except in some cases where it's complete justice", bro (whatever the hell complete justice may mean). That's called being for the death penalty.I think "complete justice" means 100% Justice, with no room left for Mercy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I think "complete justice" means 100% Justice, with no room left for Mercy.

I am guessing this is being snarky but why can't justice include mercy? (perhaps best for a thread of its own)

[Czarcasm]

I think "complete justice" means 100% Justice, with no room left for Mercy.Not my opinion, of course. I was trying to interpret the term using the posts of Qin Shi Huangdi in this thread(and others).

[WhyNot]

I am guessing this is being snarky but why can't justice include mercy? (perhaps best for a thread of its own)
In Kabalistic philosophy, Justice is represented by Chesed and Mercy by Gevurah. Chesed is constricting, it's judgement and power over. It's needed to balance Gevurah, Mercy, which is all-forgiving and expansive. Think of the stern mother and indulgent father (or you can switch the roles if you like; that's the order they're in in Kabala, but in reality of course they can be either). Too much impact from either on the children and the children will end up off-balance. Too much restriction and things don't thrive, too much freedom, and they'll run wild and self-destruct.

Tiferet is Beauty, and it's the balanced point between the energies of Chesed and Gevurah. It's the mediator, the wholeness and balance. It's also the power of Moses and Jacob (and Jesus, in later day Kabala) - not afraid to say no, but not afraid to say yes, either.

In parenting, authoritarian parenting is Justice (Chesed). Indulgent parenting is Mercy (Gevurah). Balanced parenting is authoritative (Tiferet), and is authoritarian when it needs to be (to maintain order and safety) and indulgent when it needs to be (when children need to learn from their own mistakes).

In law, bringing a suit is Justice. Ignoring a crime is Mercy. Investigating and deciding that, while technically a law may have taken place, no good will come of bringing a lawsuit is....well, I don't have a word for it. But it happens, and it should have happened in this case, given only the information we have in front of us at this time. The Tiferet place of law, whatever you'd call it.

[Annie-Xmas]

So just claim, "I woulda gone insane!" and after that do what you want?

Too easy to abuse.

This was way to get an abortion pre-Roe w. Wade. In her book Keeping Secrets, Suzanne Somers describes having to testify before a hospital board that if she had to stay prenant she would kill herself.

[smellsofgummybears]

It is no more and no less murder than abortion, at least if you subscribe to the traditional viewpoints

(i.e. either "it's a human life" or "her body, her choice")

I don't see how it is any different to be honest. If you believe the former then it's a murder suicide. If the latter then she's under no obligation to do anything to keep the fetus in good shape.

I won't provide my view on abortion as it's irrelevant.

Folk seem to be ignoring this post. Either it's criminally stupid, or I solved the problem for you. Which?

[WhyNot]

Folk seem to be ignoring this post. Either it's criminally stupid, or I solved the problem for you. Which?

Neither, I just thought you were stating the obvious.

[BigT]

I see this as a mental health issue. I wouldn't prosecute any case against the woman, because to do so would be an act of unwarranted douchery.

It would serve the prosecutor right if he suddenly suffered a horrifying neurological event in public. Unfortunately, karma does not exist.

Note that I am not claiming that she was legally insane, I'm claiming that it's humane to make allowances for severe emotional distress rather than to prosecute charges against attempted suicides.

Thank you. Someone who is bad enough off to want to end their life is not thinking about how it may hurt the baby. There's no intent there. Murder is not just the killing of someone.

I do actually think the insanity defense could work, at least from a moral standpoint. Not for ordinary depression, but suicidal depression is bad enough the you really can't think straight.

I honestly think that anything about personhood could be neatly sidestepped by any court, and, from what I've read on here, that is the normal way of handling things.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

You can't be against the death penalty "except in some cases where it's complete justice", bro (whatever the hell complete justice may mean). That's called being for the death penalty.

I am sceptical of the death penalty, not against it.

[Hamlet]

But seriously, no. I don't see why the criminal justice system has to be involved.Because she killed another human being.

I'm still not getting why, in this case, it shouldn't be criminal for her to kill another human being.

If the reason is that you believe so is that she's guilty but mentally ill, I think we could find a point of agreement somewhere in there. But if it's more of a "meh, who cares. Her kid, dad didn't care, so it's not our business", I think we'd have a point of disagreement.

[Hamlet]

Thank you. Someone who is bad enough off to want to end their life is not thinking about how it may hurt the baby. There's no intent there. Murder is not just the killing of someone.She certainly didn't intend the child to live, or else she would have put off killing herself until she gave birth. She took actions that she knew would result in and did, in fact, result in the death of another human being.

I do actually think the insanity defense could work, at least from a moral standpoint. Not for ordinary depression, but suicidal depression is bad enough the you really can't think straight.I'm much more comfortable waiting until doctors finish their examinations and see what they have to say before jumping to conclusions.

I honestly think that anything about personhood could be neatly sidestepped by any court, and, from what I've read on here, that is the normal way of handling things.What have you read?

[WhyNot]

Because she killed another human being.


But killing another human being is not always murder. Sometimes it's abortion, sometimes it's manslaughter, sometimes it's negligent homicide, sometimes it's allowing death with dignity by not putting a terminally ill patient on a ventilator (or taking them off one) because their Advanced Directives or Power of Attorney or next-of-kin request it.

Murder is when you kill, with intent and against their will, a legal person*. Her actions did not involve - at the time that they were performed - a legal person, and it's doubtful they were done with the intent to harm any legal person except herself.

*With the exception of these new stupid "murder of a fetus" laws, which are just a bad, bad idea because they lead to this sort of anti-abortion slippery slope stuff, as I've been saying since they were first proposed.

[Hamlet]

But killing another human being is not always murder. Sometimes it's abortion, sometimes it's manslaughter, sometimes it's negligent homicide, sometimes it's allowing death with dignity by not putting a terminally ill patient on a ventilator (or taking them off one) because their Advanced Directives or Power of Attorney or next-of-kin request it.And the criminal justice system is "involved" in illegal abortions, manslaughter, negligent homicide, assisted suicide, and other forms of killing. Bryan was talking about not having the criminal justice system involved at all, rather than a less-than-murder charge. There is certainly room to debate what charge best fits the situation, but deciding that the system shouldn't be involved at all struck me as a going way to far.

[WhyNot]

And the criminal justice system is "involved" in illegal abortions, manslaughter, negligent homicide, assisted suicide, and other forms of killing. Bryan was talking about not having the criminal justice system involved at all, rather than a less-than-murder charge. There is certainly room to debate what charge best fits the situation, but deciding that the system shouldn't be involved at all struck me as a going way to far.

Fair enough.

[madrabbitwoman]

I am sorry for this hijack

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.

Sorry but I think you need to meditate on some stuff from your own faith

So are YOU without sin?
http://kingjbible.com/john/8.htm

Are you showing mercy?
http://kingjbible.com/james/2.htm

Do you even have the right to pass judgement on this woman?
http://kingjbible.com/romans/2.htm

He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

[gonzomax]

Well, the framework laid out in Roe v. Wade said that as a matter of constitutional requirement, the government could not prohibit a woman from choosing to abort during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the government had a more compelling interest, and during the third trimester, the government had a stronger interest in regulating or prohibiting abortion, and held that medically necessary abortions were the only ones protected by the Constitution at that point.

So if you accept that framework, then it would seem the state has the power to criminalize what she did.

Was she trying to abort or trying to kill herself ? The baby might have been collateral damage. She may have given no thought to the kid, just wanted to kill herself.

[Bryan Ekers]

Because she killed another human being.

I'm still not getting why, in this case, it shouldn't be criminal for her to kill another human being.

Killing another human being is not automatically a criminal justice issue. I'm okay with this being one of those exceptions.

[Hamlet]

Killing another human being is not automatically a criminal justice issue. I'm okay with this being one of those exceptions.I got that already. I'm asking about the reasoning that led you to that conclusion, not simple repetition.

[tumbleddown]

I got that already. I'm asking about the reasoning that led you to that conclusion, not simple repetition.
I'm not Bryan, but how about if we start with the obvious: this is a mental health issue and the criminal justice system is not equipped nor qualified to properly deal with people with severe mental illness, however treatable that illness (and a situational depression, which she was obviously experiencing, is usually treatable) may be.

She didn't act with criminal intent toward the fetus, she was trying to kill herself. She was beyond distraught, straight unto destroyed, so much so that despite being a business owner and having purpose, she couldn't see a way to keep living.

By putting this woman into the criminal justice system, which is punitive in nature, you're suggesting that she needs (and deserves) punishment for having a broken mind. For having been devastated beyond the ability to continue living. That jail (or some jail ward in a state home) is a good place to put someone who needs intensive mental healthcare.

That would not only ignore the needs of this woman, it would set a violently dangerous precedent, not just for people with mental illnesses in general, but especially for pregnant people with mental illnesses.

[Guinastasia]

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.


What the hell is wrong with you?

[margin]

No, you're not. But I'm not seeing where it's relevant in this thread, either.

Because to many people in this thread, the only person here is the fetus, not the woman, whose actions---trying to kill herself which apparently is irrelevant----can be completely overlooked for their effect on her.

[gonzomax]

Isn't any young woman who tries to commit suicide guilty of killing "potential babies". She would be guilty of killing 2 babies, because that is how many the average woman in America has during her life.

[margin]

Isn't any young woman who tries to commit suicide guilty of killing "potential babies". She would be guilty of killing 2 babies, because that is how many the average woman in America has during her life.

How long till unfertilized eggs are declared human? Oh, wait, didn't that politician in Georgia actually declare miscarriage murder?

[Bryan Ekers]

I got that already. I'm asking about the reasoning that led you to that conclusion, not simple repetition.

Because through analysis of the issue, I've concluded that when pregnancy is involved, it is the woman herself who should have final say and not the state or any other party. I don't how punishing her is going to "teach" her anything (especially if she was mentally ill at the time), nor is it likely to deter any woman in an similar situation (and who might be comparably mentally ill and indifferent to consequences anyway).

Because she harmed herself in the process, I can picture an involuntary commitment for psychotherapy in a facility designed to treat such, a prison being a less likely venue.

[Bryan Ekers]

And the criminal justice system is "involved" in illegal abortions, manslaughter, negligent homicide, assisted suicide, and other forms of killing. Bryan was talking about not having the criminal justice system involved at all, rather than a less-than-murder charge. There is certainly room to debate what charge best fits the situation, but deciding that the system shouldn't be involved at all struck me as a going way to far.

In anticipation of a possible accusation of goalpost-moving, I'll clarify that by "not being involved", I include the possibility of law enforcement being involved at a very early stage, then concluding that this was a not a matter that required their input (the civil courts and relevant health/social welfare agencies being better suited to it), leading them to close their files on the issue without filing or seeking to file criminal charges, i.e. disinvolving themselves.

[Marley23]

What the hell is wrong with you?
This isn't appropriate for GD.

[Hamlet]

By putting this woman into the criminal justice system, which is punitive in nature, you're suggesting that she needs (and deserves) punishment for having a broken mind. For having been devastated beyond the ability to continue living. That jail (or some jail ward in a state home) is a good place to put someone who needs intensive mental healthcare.

That would not only ignore the needs of this woman, it would set a violently dangerous precedent, not just for people with mental illnesses in general, but especially for pregnant people with mental illnesses.I've consistently pointed out that if she was mentally ill and not responsible for her actions, then I have no problem with a guilty but mentally ill finding. As I said: "If the reason is that you believe so is that she's guilty but mentally ill, I think we could find a point of agreement somewhere in there."

I'm just not so quick to come to a diagnosis of mental illness based on a newspaper report, so I'll probably hold off until I learn more.

[Hamlet]

Because through analysis of the issue, I've concluded that when pregnancy is involved, it is the woman herself who should have final say and not the state or any other party.Does that include post-viability or late term abortions (with the usual exceptions)? If you feel laws outlawing abortion in the third trimester should not be enforced, I can understand how you would conclude it is none of the state's business. But if this suicide attempt happened in the post viability/third trimester, I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that it is no longer her choice.

I don't how punishing her is going to "teach" her anything (especially if she was mentally ill at the time), nor is it likely to deter any woman in an similar situation (and who might be comparably mentally ill and indifferent to consequences anyway).

Because she harmed herself in the process, I can picture an involuntary commitment for psychotherapy in a facility designed to treat such, a prison being a less likely venue.[/QUOTE]Again, if she's guilty but mentally ill, we likely agree how this case should be handled.

[Bricker]

I am sorry for this hijack



Sorry but I think you need to meditate on some stuff from your own faith

So are YOU without sin?
http://kingjbible.com/john/8.htm

Are you showing mercy?
http://kingjbible.com/james/2.htm

Do you even have the right to pass judgement on this woman?
http://kingjbible.com/romans/2.htm

He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Based on your apparent understanding of the Christian faith, it would seem impossible for Christians to participate in any functioning society. How could a society even have a justice system?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the evidence will show that the accused donned a mask, entered the First National Bank branch on Elm Street, displayed a revolver, and handed the teller a note demanding all the money in his cash drawer. As we are all Christians, however, and forbidden to judge anyone, I just wanted to advise you that the accused has already been set free, since after all none of us are without sin."

Doesn't really seem like a workable system, does it?

And so perhaps your understanding of the meaning of the passages you quoted is flawed.

[Czarcasm]

Based on your apparent understanding of the Christian faith, it would seem impossible for Christians to participate in any functioning society. How could a society even have a justice system?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the evidence will show that the accused donned a mask, entered the First National Bank branch on Elm Street, displayed a revolver, and handed the teller a note demanding all the money in his cash drawer. As we are all Christians, however, and forbidden to judge anyone, I just wanted to advise you that the accused has already been set free, since after all none of us are without sin."

Doesn't really seem like a workable system, does it?

And so perhaps your understanding of the meaning of the passages you quoted is flawed.Or maybe the purpose of Christianity wasn't to work within the system as it now exists?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Or maybe the purpose of Christianity wasn't to work within the system as it now exists?

On the contrary, Paul did participate in a trial under the Romans, and convert Christians remained the legions, as jail wardens, and so on.

[wmfellows]

I have to say I was utterly stunned to read a prosecutor thinks this is a good use of state resources or that it makes any sense to punish a woman for having attempted suicide and possibly for having provoked the death of her infant.

Really quite stunning.

Even more stunning, that there are defenders for this grotesque mis-allocation of time and resources.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I have to say I was utterly stunned to read a prosecutor thinks this is a good use of state resources or that it makes any sense to punish a woman for having attempted suicide and possibly for having provoked the death of her infant.

Really quite stunning.

Even more stunning, that there are defenders for this grotesque mis-allocation of time and resources.

So infanticide isn't a crime I suppose nor is attempted suicide causing the deaths of others?

[Malthus]

I have to say I was utterly stunned to read a prosecutor thinks this is a good use of state resources or that it makes any sense to punish a woman for having attempted suicide and possibly for having provoked the death of her infant.

Really quite stunning.

Even more stunning, that there are defenders for this grotesque mis-allocation of time and resources.

This case is a paradigm for awkward facts. If the woman fed rat poision to her newborn child and took it herself in the type of murder/suicide deal that is not uncommon, I doubt anyone would be saying that the involvement of the state would be a waste of time - or say if her husband did the same.

The only reason that it is even a controversy is that it appears to so many to be a cat's paw for the abortion debate.

[In Canada, there exists a seperate crime of "infanticide" which allocates lesser responsibility to women who murder newborns while their minds are disturbed by post-partum depression ... obviously, this would not be an issue in this case.]

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

This case is a paradigm for awkward facts. If the woman fed rat poision to her newborn child and took it herself in the type of murder/suicide deal that is not uncommon, I doubt anyone would be saying that the involvement of the state would be a waste of time - or say if her husband did the same.

The only reason that it is even a controversy is that it appears to so many to be a cat's paw for the abortion debate.

[In Canada, there exists a seperate crime of "infanticide" which allocates lesser responsibility to women who murder newborns while their minds are disturbed by post-partum depression ... obviously, this would not be an issue in this case.]

That Canadian law is disgusting. Abortions are now de facto available for anyone for a while after birth.

[Malthus]

That Canadian law is disgusting. Abortions are now de facto available for anyone for a while after birth.

It's lesser responsibility, not no responsibility. The effect is to limit imprisionment to no more than five years.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

It's lesser responsibility, not no responsibility. The effect is to limit imprisionment to no more than five years.

In other words, make it into a trivial misdemenor because that's just the maximum sentence.

[Malthus]

In other words, make it into a trivial misdemenor because that's just the maximum sentence.

It's classified as an indictable offence (in Canada, the equivalent to the US "misdemenor" category is classified as "summary conviction" offences).

So no, it is not open season on newborns.

That doesn't mean that the statute is not open to criticism. Just don't mischaracterize what it states.

First, in order to qualify, there must be evidence that her "mind is disturbed" for the reasons stated:

233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

Then, it is still an indictable offence:

237. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

This law is open to the criticism that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is usually a complete defence to a criminal indictment; it creates an awkward halfway-house for a very specific form of temporary insanity.

[Guinastasia]

Sorry, Marley.

So infanticide isn't a crime I suppose nor is attempted suicide causing the deaths of others?

Mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)


Diminished Capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_capacity_in_United_States_law)


(I don't know if this particular case would fall under such law, but it sounds like a textbook example)


One day, grasshopper, you will learn that nothing in this world is as black or white as you seem to think it.

[Cat Fight]

That Canadian law is disgusting. Abortions are now de facto available for anyone for a while after birth.

Well that's why Canada's such a hellhole, and why so many Canadian women have a total blast getting third-trimester abortions.

I'm a bit nauseous over some of these comments. It's one thing to ask women to take prenatal vitamins, to stop drinking, to change their lifestyles for the health of their fetus and future child. But they're supposed to overcome suicidal depression for the sake of the children? And this shouldn't be considered because women might then say 'If I can't get an abortion, I'll kill myself' and no one will know if they mean it? Disgusting.

[Hamlet]

Nothing like accusations of having a position that is "stunning", a grotesque waste of time, and disgusting to aid in a great debate. Now I recall why I swore not to become involved in any abortion thread here. Which is weird because this case isn't about abortion.

[Cat Fight]

Nothing like accusations of having a position that is "stunning", a grotesque waste of time, and disgusting to aid in a great debate. Now I recall why I swore not to become involved in any abortion thread here. Which is weird because this case isn't about abortion.

It's not? Because that seems to be the bulk of the link in the OP.

"This case has huge implications for pregnant women, not only in Indiana but across the country," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If we allowed the state to put a woman in jail for anything that could pose a risk to her pregnancy, there would be nothing to stop the police putting in jail a woman who has a drink of wine or who smokes. So where do you draw the line?"

Perhaps if she could have obtained a legal abortion (though I still can't find information on how far along she was in her pregnancy) she would have opted for that over attempted suicide. Maybe the shame of being abandoned was enough to drive her to it, anyway, without the possibility of being a single mother. A pity no one clued her into the traditional American method of falling down the stairs.

[foolsguinea]

Based on your apparent understanding of the Christian faith, it would seem impossible for Christians to participate in any functioning society. How could a society even have a justice system?
...
And so perhaps your understanding of the meaning of the passages you quoted is flawed.Yes, the tendency of certain social liberals to claim that Christianity teaches us never to judge is...annoying. I suppose a case could be made that Jesus really meant that and that it is proof he was mad, but that's...worrying.In law, bringing a suit is Justice. Ignoring a crime is Mercy. Investigating and deciding that, while technically a law may have taken place, no good will come of bringing a lawsuit is....well, I don't have a word for it. But it happens, and it should have happened in this case, given only the information we have in front of us at this time. The Tiferet place of law, whatever you'd call it.Once again, philosophical thought trumps easy simplicity.I have to say I was utterly stunned to read a prosecutor thinks this is a good use of state resources or that it makes any sense to punish a woman for having attempted suicide and possibly for having provoked the death of her infant.

Really quite stunning.

Even more stunning, that there are defenders for this grotesque mis-allocation of time and resources.Nothing like accusations of having a position that is "stunning", a grotesque waste of time, and disgusting to aid in a great debate. Now I recall why I swore not to become involved in any abortion thread here. Which is weird because this case isn't about abortion.Piffle. It's outrageous, we are outraged. I suppose you want a serious-minded great debate on whether gingers have souls next.It's lesser responsibility, not no responsibility. The effect is to limit imprisionment to no more than five years.In other words, make it into a trivial misdemenor because that's just the maximum sentence.Five years is not a misdemeanor sentence, unless you're in Elfland or something.

[tumbleddown]

For those who need further explication on why using the law in this fashion to punish actions taken by a pregnant woman, the ACLU's Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011-03-30_-_Shuai_-_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf) (pdf link) the charges against Ms. Shuai are illustrative. The three main issues:

- The language of laws regarding injury to pregnant woman that causes the death of the fetus she's carrying makes it clear that they were designed to punish third parties who assault pregnant women (with or without intent to harm the fetus) not the women themselves.

- Using criminal law to punish a pregnant woman for things that she did/did not do (but should have) during her pregnancy based on pregnancy outcomes is both discriminatory and sets a horrible precedent of both unconstitutionally invasive monitoring of pregnant women (especially those in less than ideal home situations or those with any history of potentially complicating illness), It also sets the stage for an abrogation of doctor/patient confidentiality for pregnant women and de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance

- In this particular case, Ms. Shuai's actions upon admission to the hospital would indicate that she was absolutely in a mentally resolute state upon admission, but had protective, not destructive intent toward the child, as shown in her agreement (after several days of treatment) to a c-section delivery and in her demeanor toward the child once born.

It's a lengthy read, but worthwhile to get a handle on the issues of using existing law in this fashion.

[bengangmo]

If there were a few things you could prove it would be ok by me to charge her for murder:
1. There was no (or minimal) risk to herself in taking the rat poison
2. She knew that the rat poison was going kill her baby while being safe for herself
3. She wanted to get rid of the baby
4. The rat poison can be proven to have killed the baby.
5. She was "sane" when she took the poison

At 33 weeks the baby is viable (and presumably this was a healthy, normal baby) so any act the deliberatly causes its death should come in for "punishment"

[Bryan Ekers]

Does that include post-viability or late term abortions (with the usual exceptions)? If you feel laws outlawing abortion in the third trimester should not be enforced, I can understand how you would conclude it is none of the state's business. But if this suicide attempt happened in the post viability/third trimester, I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that it is no longer her choice.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point.

Again, if she's guilty but mentally ill, we likely agree how this case should be handled.

I'm not conceding that's she's guilty of anything.

[wmfellows]

Nothing like accusations of having a position that is "stunning", a grotesque waste of time, and disgusting to aid in a great debate. Now I recall why I swore not to become involved in any abortion thread here. Which is weird because this case isn't about abortion.

It would seem to me that taking the position that a woman who tried to commit suicide must be prosecuted for murder (I do believe a capital crime in the US) would normally require a strong constitution so as not to be put off when people reasonably observe that prosecution of post-suicide attempts is a grotesque waste of state resources.

[Bricker]

- The language of laws regarding injury to pregnant woman that causes the death of the fetus she's carrying makes it clear that they were designed to punish third parties who assault pregnant women (with or without intent to harm the fetus) not the women themselves.


Disagree. If the legislature meant to include that exception, they could have easily made the language explicit.


- Using criminal law to punish a pregnant woman for things that she did/did not do (but should have) during her pregnancy based on pregnancy outcomes is both discriminatory...

Not discriminatory in a way that violates Due Process or Equal Protection. Obviously it's "discriminatory" in a sense. But every law is "discriminatory" in that it discriminates between two classes of persons in some way.

...and sets a horrible precedent of both unconstitutionally invasive monitoring of pregnant women (especially those in less than ideal home situations or those with any history of potentially complicating illness),

Then we can address the invasive monitoring if and when it happens.

It also sets the stage for an abrogation of doctor/patient confidentiality for pregnant women and de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance


Then we can address the abrogation of the privilege if and when it happens.


- In this particular case, Ms. Shuai's actions upon admission to the hospital would indicate that she was absolutely in a mentally resolute state upon admission, but had protective, not destructive intent toward the child, as shown in her agreement (after several days of treatment) to a c-section delivery and in her demeanor toward the child once born.


That's a good argument to make.

[Bricker]

I'm not conceding that's she's guilty of anything.

Do you concede that she took poison intending to end her life, and that she did so within the third trimester of her pregnancy?

[Malthus]

It would seem to me that taking the position that a woman who tried to commit suicide must be prosecuted for murder (I do believe a capital crime in the US) would normally require a strong constitution so as not to be put off when people reasonably observe that prosecution of post-suicide attempts is a grotesque waste of state resources.

Would your opinion be the same in the case of a person who drives their car into the river with his or her newborn baby in the back - and lives?

I guess I don't understand why murder-suicide ought to be considered an obvious "pass".

Clearly, not guilty by reason of insanity is a possibility, as is some sort of diminished capacity defence.

To my mind, the most significant legal fact is whether the child was otherwise viable - that is, how far advanced the pregancy was. So far, for whatever reason, none of the links make it clear, though the impression given is that it was pretty advanced: I assume purely for argument's sake that the child could have been born viably. If the pregancy was still within the range of legal abortion, no "crime" whatsoever has been committed; if the child was about to be born, the situation is really no different from infanticide generally.

However, nothing in the link posted and summarized by tumbledown struck me as particularly convincing, as follows:

- The language of laws regarding injury to pregnant woman that causes the death of the fetus she's carrying makes it clear that they were designed to punish third parties who assault pregnant women (with or without intent to harm the fetus) not the women themselves.

While this may well be true, it strikes me as irrelevant to the basic issue - ought a woman who is close to birth be punished for an act she reasonably ought to know will kill the otherwise-viable child? It may well be she ought not to be charged under those particular laws.

- Using criminal law to punish a pregnant woman for things that she did/did not do (but should have) during her pregnancy based on pregnancy outcomes is both discriminatory and sets a horrible precedent of both unconstitutionally invasive monitoring of pregnant women (especially those in less than ideal home situations or those with any history of potentially complicating illness), It also sets the stage for an abrogation of doctor/patient confidentiality for pregnant women and de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance

This is the nub of the matter, and probably goes far to explain why this case is controversial. However, it is clearly an argument by slippery-slope. The argument goes that this case ought not to result in punishment not on its own merits, but because it will be used as a wedge to undermine the rights of pregnant women everywhere.

However bad 'de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance' may be (and it is pretty bad, admittedly), this is not the facts of this case.

- In this particular case, Ms. Shuai's actions upon admission to the hospital would indicate that she was absolutely in a mentally resolute state upon admission, but had protective, not destructive intent toward the child, as shown in her agreement (after several days of treatment) to a c-section delivery and in her demeanor toward the child once born.

Post-incident remorse and "protective" feelings towards the alleged victim strikes me as a relevant factor for sentencing, not guilt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Do you concede that she took poison intending to end her life, and that she did so within the third trimester of her pregnancy?

Yes, but I'm unclear on where "guilt" attaches to that, or even that it should.

[wmfellows]

Would your opinion be the same in the case of a person who drives their car into the river with his or her newborn baby in the back - and lives?

Depends on the facts, but once the baby is outside the mother, there is a whole different game.

I guess I don't understand why murder-suicide ought to be considered an obvious "pass".


Suicide attempt.

[Malthus]

Depends on the facts, but once the baby is outside the mother, there is a whole different game.



Suicide attempt.

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

I am most definitely pro-choice on abortion, because as far as I'm concerned a fetus is not a "person" until it develops conciousness and the attributes of humanity - disposing of it ought to be no more significant, legally speaking, than flushing sperm cells. The moment that a fetus crosses over to become a person can't be pegged exactly ... but certainly it happens at least some time before birth. Birth is no more a "magic moment" than conception, which is used by the anti-choice crowd as their marker.

Murder-suicide is pretty common - many parents take their kids with them. No doubt if they survive, and the kid doesn't, many are filled with remorse. The fact that the parent wanted to kill him or herself should not in and of itself give them a pass.

[WhyNot]

The other thing that worries me is that if this woman is found guilty, and thus precedent is set in case law, is that there may be some other desperate, suicidal woman out there who takes an overdose of something, but then can't be persuaded to seek medical help because she knows she may be found guilty and imprisoned if the damage may already done to her fetus. It may or may not be, but I'd be very reluctant to seek medical care even if I had second thoughts. If I'm already suicidal, I'd prefer death to imprisonment, and there'd be no talking me in to the ER to save me OR the fetus.

Deterrent goes both ways. In this case, it may end up deterring suicidal women from seeking medical care.

[Bryan Ekers]

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

It's an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn't strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.

[Bricker]

Yes, but I'm unclear on where "guilt" attaches to that, or even that it should.

Gotcha. I just wasn't clear if you were questioning the underlying facts or the application of the law to them.

I have no trouble at all imagining that there's sufficient evidence for a diminished capacity defense, where she couldn't form criminal intent due to her mental distress, or even a complete lack of criminal liability due to her being unable to appreciate the nature and quality of her actions.

I do think that if we remove that aspect of the equation, then her conduct violates the feticide law in Indiana. Whether such a law should exist is a question I'll leave to the people of Indiana.

[wmfellows]

See, this strikes me as simply odd - that killing a viable baby five minutes before birth ought to be a legal non-event, but five minutes after birth be murder punishable by the full force of the law.

Nowhere did I write that deliberate killing of a viable baby is a legal non event.

Murder-suicide is pretty common - many parents take their kids with them. No doubt if they survive, and the kid doesn't, many are filled with remorse. The fact that the parent wanted to kill him or herself should not in and of itself give them a pass.

When children are outside the womb, the menu of choices, and the fact two clearly separated human beings are interacting rather changes things.

[wmfellows]

It's an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn't strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.
This also applies, although Malthus was putting words into my mouth.

[Malthus]

It's an arbitrary line, like any other. You can perform an act very close to a state border and not be a criminal but move five feet to the left, over the border, do the exact same act and suddenly you are a criminal. This doesn't strike me as particularly baffling, nor a justification to eliminate borders.

This arbitrary point lacks justification.

It strikes me as the mirror-image to the (equally unpersuasive) argument advanced by the anti-choice folks: that the moment of conception "ought" to be the "natural" arbitrary dividing-line between human and not-human.

The problem is that, as with any gradual process, there is some point where the developing fetus becomes obviously "human", but that point cannot be easily pinpointed. It certainly is not birth or conception. It probably happens some point in the third trimester ...

[Malthus]

Nowhere did I write that deliberate killing of a viable baby is a legal non event.

This also applies, although Malthus was putting words into my mouth.

So you agree with this, but not when I say it? :D

[wmfellows]

So you agree with this, but not when I say it? :D

No, don't be silly. I was agreeing with Eykers observation regarding drawing lines.

[Bryan Ekers]

This arbitrary point lacks justification.

Oh. Does it? Okay, then.

[Malthus]

No, don't be silly. I was agreeing with Eykers observation regarding drawing lines.

Okay, I'm having trouble getting a bead on what you actually believe.

How about this - in your opinion, ought the killing of a fetus immediately pre-birth be a legal non-event, because it takes place on the right side of the "arbitrary line"?

[foolsguinea]

The other thing that worries me is that if this woman is found guilty, and thus precedent is set in case law, is that there may be some other desperate, suicidal woman out there who takes an overdose of something, but then can't be persuaded to seek medical help because she knows she may be found guilty and imprisoned if the damage may already done to her fetus. It may or may not be, but I'd be very reluctant to seek medical care even if I had second thoughts. If I'm already suicidal, I'd prefer death to imprisonment, and there'd be no talking me in to the ER to save me OR the fetus.

Deterrent goes both ways. In this case, it may end up deterring suicidal women from seeking medical care.This is a good consequentialist reason to seek not to prosecute this sort of case.

[kanicbird]

This is a very special case. The woman was troubled to the point of killing herself and her child. Her actions only ended up only killed the child - this is very possibly the worst possible outcome for her. She will most likely feel the punishment for a very long time and she may feel the need to be punished by the state, but besides her own mental health there is no benefit to have her locked up by society, her crime will haunt her for a long time. Locking her up may be beneficial to her for a time as it will give her the comfort to feel she is paying that debt to her child.

In her best interest perhaps a sentence of her being locked up / house arrest on a voluntary basis until she feels like she can go free.

[foolsguinea]

I actually sort of agree with kanicbird. In an ideal world, that would be a good answer. Pragmatically, the justice system doesn't work that way. But the mental health system may.

[WhyNot]

In her best interest perhaps a sentence of her being locked up / house arrest on a voluntary basis until she feels like she can go free.
I'm very uncomfortable with taxpayers paying for penance prison, especially for a self-selected term of imprisonment.

While I agree with you that there is often a spiritual/religious/psychological need for penance before self-forgiveness and healing can occur, I think that's a matter for this woman and her minister, priest(ess), rabbi, imam and/or psychologist. Any one of those professionals worth his or her salt can find some method of penance and atonement to suit the situation. (Me, I'd encourage her to, once she's more mentally stable, work a suicide hotline for a while, helping other people who are emotionally where she once was. I'd point out that this is her spiritual duty and burden, therefore she is morally responsible for getting herself mentally healthy again so that she can assume the responsibility.)

[kanicbird]

I'm very uncomfortable with taxpayers paying for penance prison, especially for a self-selected term of imprisonment.

While I agree with you that there is often a spiritual/religious/psychological need for penance before self-forgiveness and healing can occur, I think that's a matter for this woman and her minister, priest(ess), rabbi, imam and/or psychologist. Any one of those professionals worth his or her salt can find some method of penance and atonement to suit the situation. (Me, I'd encourage her to, once she's more mentally stable, work a suicide hotline for a while, helping other people who are emotionally where she once was. I'd point out that this is her spiritual duty and burden, therefore she is morally responsible for getting herself mentally healthy again so that she can assume the responsibility.)

While I understand your point, I find it very ironic that so much money is spent on punishment, and in this case where that system can actually help a person's life it is too expensive to use.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Yes it is murder and at any rate she'll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.

Qin, I ask you this question in all seriousness. No mocking or irony whatsoever, I promise.

Do you think Jesus would share this attitude? Do you think he would approve of your uttering such a remark, or urge you to consider the mote in your own eye, and to find mercy in your heart?

[Frylock]

That's a hell of a leap.

Icarus said "The question then becomes - did the woman's actions result in the death of another person."

See the difference?

If I am a woman with a recessive gene for a deadly congenital disorder, and I have sex, as a result of which I concieve, and I go on to give birth, and the baby dies at some point as a result of the disorder, then my action (having sex, giving birth, etc) has resulted in the death of a person.

We should try to avoid the conclusion that this is murder, but you can't deny the action led to the death of a person. This is a case where we need to become clear about which actions-leading-to-death count as murder and which don't.

[Skald the Rhymer]

If I am a woman with a recessive gene for a deadly congenital disorder, and I have sex, as a result of which I concieve, and I go on to give birth, and the baby dies at some point as a result of the disorder, then my action (having sex, giving birth, etc) has resulted in the death of a person.


All human births result in the death of a person.

[Guinastasia]

Wow, for once I agree completely with Kanicbird.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Qin, I ask you this question in all seriousness. No mocking or irony whatsoever, I promise.

Do you think Jesus would share this attitude? Do you think he would approve of your uttering such a remark, or urge you to consider the mote in your own eye, and to find mercy in your heart?

No, not really I suppose. :(

[foolsguinea]

I would add that suicide is probably considered "an unforgivable sin" less because it's so heinous than because it's so irreversible.

Except by those people who lose all respect for suicides and attempted suicides, because a lack of committed self-love offends them ethically; & I've known one or two of those.

[tumbleddown]

If I am a woman with a recessive gene for a deadly congenital disorder, and I have sex, as a result of which I concieve, and I go on to give birth, and the baby dies at some point as a result of the disorder, then my action (having sex, giving birth, etc) has resulted in the death of a person.

We should try to avoid the conclusion that this is murder, but you can't deny the action led to the death of a person. This is a case where we need to become clear about which actions-leading-to-death count as murder and which don't.Let's keep this in the realm of actions, though. Having a gene isn't an action. But drug use is. So what happens with a woman who is pregnant and is using drugs every day. (Whatever drug you want, Vicodin, crack, Prozac, SuperAwesomeHighlantin.)

She gives birth to a presumed full-term (but no way to know for sure) baby who lives two hours and then dies. The baby is small, has brain damage incompatible with life, organ damage and the drug in the bloodstream.

Do we charge her with murder or even a lesser form of homicide?

Every state that's tried has failed, even when they've used statutes specifically designed to criminalize supplying drugs to "children" that do not designate the age of the "child" in any way.