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.
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’m much more comfortable waiting until doctors finish their examinations and see what they have to say before jumping to conclusions.
What have you read?
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.
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.
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?
Are you showing mercy?
Do you even have the right to pass judgement on this woman?
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?
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.
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.
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.
What the hell is wrong with you?
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.
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?
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.
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.
This isn’t appropriate for GD.
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.
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.
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.
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.