Whose choice?

This is creepy on a number of levels, but might interest the lawyers in our midst.

What happens when a woman chooses to abort her fetus in um ... unconventionally? (link via Drudge)

What strikes me about this is that she was complicit, yet the law designates her the victim of the crime because the fetus can not be so designated.

This is sure to be a highly politicized case, complicated by the fact that the action, regardless of anyone's view on abortion, was unconscionable.

posted by Dennis on 01.04.05 at 03:15 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1890






Comments

The mind boogles

IMHO, the law is worded that way so a woman seeking an abortion (willful termination of a pregnancy) won't be held complicit in the death of the fetus. Yet, the law wants to make sure to punish those who would kill the fetus during the commission of a criminal act (assault, murder, DUI, etc). Certainly the boyfriend assaulted her, but the knot comes because she "asked for it." Truly.

In CA in domestic violence cases we can prosecute even without the cooperation of the victim (it's always surprising to me the number of victims who "make up" with their abuser than turn up at the DA office pleading that charges be dropped..or even lying about how the injuries occured) .. so even if this girl "consented" to her boyfriend beating her, the state can prosecute regardless of such consent.

Any bets how long NARAL, et al will file amicus briefs in this case? Or at least do some media face time decrying the "anti-abortion zealots" who "forced" this young couple to choose such a tragic route?

Darleen   ·  January 4, 2005 03:42 PM

I'm not sure why it's unconscionable regardless of one's views on abortion.

After all, she was apparently a willing participant, from the scant information available.

What's the difference between that and an abortion performed in a clinic, that makes it unconscionable? (It's unlikely, for instance, that the fetus was in any condition to suffer much more, especially given some reports of essentially live "birth" via abortion followed by slow death.)

Stupid, reckless, and irresponsible (because likely to cause more injury to the mother), yes. Unconscionable? Not to my mind, at least, not any more or less than an abortion itself. (Which is my entire point - I just don't see that it's any worse, morally, than a clinical abortion, though it's more dangerous in a practical sense.)

Sigivald   ·  January 4, 2005 05:05 PM

I vote with Sigavald on this one, in that it's no better or worse (in theory) than having a regular abortion. It's an old form of abortion, if you will. 'A Modest Proposal' discusses husbands offering to beat their wives to terminate a pregnancy.

There are also a wide variety of herbs that will induce early labor/abortion. I won't list them here in case some damn fool is reading this, but I am curious how a case of self-induced herbal abortion would be treated. Would the aborter be guilty of practising medicine without a license?

Persnickety   ·  January 5, 2005 09:57 AM

Even granted the premise that a fetus is not human, I have yet to hear of a method of abortion, in the later stages of a pregnancy anyway, that would pass muster with the ASPCA if done to a dog or a cat.



December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits