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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you think the state could criminalize drinking when pregnant? Should it be illegal to have a child with fetal alcohol syndrome?
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?
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.
But the actions were done to the fetus, not the baby.
(sorry, the fetus at best. Although they were done to the woman in actuality)
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.
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?
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.
Yes it is murder and at any rate she’ll be granted her wish, so she should be happy.
While its very likely the mother’s actions are what caused the seizures there really isn’t a definitive way to prove that.
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.
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.
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.