|
January 04, 2005
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
Comments
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. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · January 5, 2005 01:53 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
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?