Patient attacks pregnant nurse, attack kills baby, Manslaughter charge
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
Gondwanaland
Well-known member
Butbutbut, I was reliably informed it's "just a clump of cells", and "just a fetus, not a person"........
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
I would be interested in hearing from pro-choicers as to whether they agree that the manslaughter charge is appropriate in this case. If so, then how does one consistently apply this philosophy of when life begins? It seems inescapable to me that if a person believes life does not begin at conception in the case of an abortion, but that it does when a man attacks a pregnant woman, then the pro-choice person is basically defining human life based on whether a person is wanted or not.
Temujin
Well-known member
Personally, I think that the law in the US as it stands is a mess, for precisely the reason you state. I can say that manslaughter would not be the charge in the UK, but grievous bodily harm on the mother, who is the real victim. The foetus cannot be a victim of crime, any crime, under the law here.
As a matter of interest, can you tell me what would happen in the US if a person sued their mother because they suffer from FAS? Can you sue for damage caused to you by wilful neglect while in the womb?
What if we said the mother doesnt have the right?
I mean both do have rights and its not logical to discriminate against one or the other as you have done.
Also, what reasons have you got to think the US law is a mess; to me it looks like the UK law is a mess, not least because the example here is manslaughter
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
I honestly don't know, but I'm certain it would depend on the state...there is no federal law (to my knowledge) giving such individuals the right to sue their biological mother for damage caused by willful neglect in the womb.
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
I agree that the UK law as you've stated it is consistent; but it seems terrible in its implications. Does the NHS provide free healthcare for both the mother and her unborn child? On what basis do they do so?
Temujin
Well-known member
Thanks. I keep forgetting that laws differ so markedly between states.
I agree, a law that is terrible is not made good by being consistent.
Temujin
Well-known member
The NHS provides care for the woman. She is given world class antenatal care. If the unborn child requires care or treatment, then that too is given. If she requests and qualifies for an abortion, that will also be provided. All treatment is based on care for the woman. If for some reason there is a conflict between caring for her and caring for the foetus, then she comes first, unless it is her wish to take risks on behalf of her unborn child. She holds the cards and she has the choices. She is a person. At no time is the foetus, who is not a person, prioritised over her, against her wishes. The foetus has no rights to treatment independent of her or her wishes.
In fact a French friend prefered to return to France for the healthcare on her second pregnancy. And of course in France abortion laws are different.
And remember the unborn human isnt just 'the fetus', the unborn human can also be at embryo stage. The advantage of some parts of the USA and indeed France is that the unborn human gets some rights to life and sooner, respectively
And remember the unborn human isnt just 'the fetus', the unborn human can also be at embryo stage. The advantage of some parts of the USA and indeed France is that the unborn human gets some rights to life and sooner, respectively
Temujin
Well-known member
Nothing wrong with French healthcare. The problem with "rights" is that if all you do is call for them, they become meaningless. More women and children die in childbirth in the US than in either France or the UK. US perinatal healthcare is rubbish, despite the "rights". What is the point of a right to life, if the system you are in denies you the healthcare you require to survive?
U.S. Maternal And Infant Mortality: More Signs Of Public Health Neglect
The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world where maternal mortality is rising. And with respect to infant mortality, the U.S. ranks 33 out of 36 OECD nations, with 5.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In the U.S. in 2018 21,000 infants died.
www.forbes.com
What is the point of great healthcare if you are one of the human beings who gets killed instead of benefiting from it.Nothing wrong with French healthcare. The problem with "rights" is that if all you do is call for them, they become meaningless. More women and children die in childbirth in the US than in either France or the UK. US perinatal healthcare is rubbish, despite the "rights". What is the point of a right to life, if the system you are in denies you the healthcare you require to survive?
U.S. Maternal And Infant Mortality: More Signs Of Public Health Neglect
The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world where maternal mortality is rising. And with respect to infant mortality, the U.S. ranks 33 out of 36 OECD nations, with 5.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In the U.S. in 2018 21,000 infants died.
Remember pro-life is concerned with the rights of the unborn human being as well as the mother whereas your position of discrimination and denial of rights to the unborn human being excludes you from being able to speak for healthcare.
Temujin. The life of the human being begins at conception and not at some arbitary developmental stage that you discriminate with. The vast majority of mothers want their baby, its only suddenly called 'the fetus' when people want the offspring to be terminated. Your words about healthcare are hollow and dont represent everyone.
Temujin. The life of the human being begins at conception and not at some arbitary developmental stage that you discriminate with. The vast majority of mothers want their baby, its only suddenly called 'the fetus' when people want the offspring to be terminated. Your words about healthcare are hollow and dont represent everyone.
Temujin. The life of the human being begins at conception and not at some arbitary developmental stage that you discriminate with. The vast majority of mothers want their baby, its only suddenly called 'the fetus' when people want the offspring to be terminated. Your words about healthcare are hollow and dont represent everyone.
Whateverman
Well-known member
As a pro-choice supporter, the question of whether the charge is appropriate or not doesn't matter too much (to me).
I lean Libertarian in some ways, largely favoring states' rights when it comes to contentious issues like marriage, abortion, etc. In this particular case, I think states can/should craft manslaughter laws as they see fit (within the confines of the constitution and other legal standards, etc).
In other words, if a state says that causing the death of a pregnant woman's fetus without her consent equates to manslaughter, I'm fine with that. I may not agree, but my (dis)agreement is moot - because the state has the right to craft this definition/law.
ps. kudos for asking your question respectfully. There are many here (including the thread's author) who seek to politicize issues with the aim of insulting those he/she/it disagrees with. By contrast, you asked the questions of "pro-choicers", rather than liberals or Democrats or whatever political label that can be used to dismiss the opinions of the people the question is being asked of. In other words, your question was obviously sincere, which was refreshing change of pace.