So, in "america", you can now be put in prison for life if you have a miscarriage. What sayeth thou?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
75 Answers
but in all honesty, this is horrible. The medical examiner put together a case to charge the girl. Now, NO WOMAN is safe. If the miscarriage could be blamed on us for what ever trumped up reasoning we could go to jail.
Again, there is no war on women.
In the US, no.
But the South isn’t part of the US; just ask them and they’ll tell you.
Ok.. only war on pregnant women, then.
I wonder what happens if a mother gives her child cocaine and the child dies? I don’t want any laws that put women in jail for terminating their pregnancy or miscarrying, but when a pregnant women is abusing the fetus, I just don’t know where I stand. From a legal standpoint I don’t want any laws regarding it, but from a moral standpoint I have trouble.
@JLeslie While that’s fine on a personal level, the real issue here is, “Whose morals become law?”.
The vast majority of cultures and religions believe that the unwarranted taking of human life is wrong, which is why I can’t kill half the motorists on I-5; nearly everybody agrees that those motorists are human, and bad driving isn’t sufficient cause to kill. However, not everyone agrees that the unborn are human, so there is a real risk of imposing the morality of the few upon all of us. Our society isn’t 99.94% pro-life, so that’s a real issue unless one wants a Theocracy, in which case that opens a whole new can of worms.
So, either we cause unrest amongst a group who already is rather restless, or we set a legal precedent that brings us closer to a religious state rather than a secular one. Either way, this case is important as it touches on issues far beyond a coke-snorting female and her dead child.
Isn’t the premise of the question jumping to conclusion since the case is not yet settled?
In America the average sentence for killing your own child is two years.
Don’t let the facts interfere with your hatred of America.
Not only that, but the man leading the prosecution here is using faulty ‘scientific’ evidence.
@JLeslie: In my state, if a woman gives birth to a baby that has drugs in its system, that’s a CPS report. The baby is subject to being removed from the mother’s care. Whether or not the mother is charged with a crime depends on circumstances.
No one has been convicted of anything. If this wasn’t a case meant to set precedent on both sides, it probably would have been settled long ago for a fraction of the possible sentence.
A mother should have control of her body but at some point you’re just abusing or neglecting your child and your choices have an impact on their lives. 36 weeks is well beyond that point by pretty much any measure.
The disagreement regarding whether or not cocaine does damage to unborn children isn’t so much whether it has a good chance to do some damage, it is just whether it will always cause irreparable harm. There are too many children born early, with low birthweight, and all the problems that come with it when their mother uses certain drugs for that to be in question. The comparison given is to alcohol and tobacco, two substances which are known to cause problems as well.
It’s not in question that she was exposing her baby to risks by using drugs, whether or not that’s criminal almost seems like an afterthought.
Put another way, which of these situations is ok? Which would you defend as a mother’s choice?
A mother giving her 1 year old cocaine.
A mother letting a 2 year try cocaine when the baby asks for some.
A mother whose 2 year old found her cocaine in the house and tried some.
I don’t think any of those should be a life sentence, but feel they all demonstrate you may not be fit to raise a child and you may lose some of your autonomy.
People, this is a causation fail. No proof that what ever the girl did during her pregnancy actually caused the death of the baby. What next, if you can’t afford healthcare and prenatal care, and have miscarriages, you go up on murder charges?
Ugh. This country is becoming full of too many people insisting on controlling others. Before such advanced testing a still born baby was a reason to grieve, not spend tax dollars.
@funkdaddy: why involve the justice system at all? The solution is drug treatment programs, which are cheaper than fascism prison.
If it was the umbilical cord, it’s not the mother’s fault. If it’s indeed cocaine, she should be penalized.
But I’m a Republican from Missouri and a Christian so no big shocker that I feel that way.
@cazzie – you’re arguing two different things.
1) that this particular case does not warrant a murder charge… I agree
2) that this case shows there is a “war on women” and that “no woman is safe”... I disagree
These cases seem to be brought primarily against mothers who admit to taking illegal and harmful drugs during the later parts of their pregnancy. I don’t think that’s all women, representative of women, and not sure if that’s a group without some level of accountability for their actions.
I don’t doubt that there’s a war against women in some areas, but this isn’t that anymore than DUI charges show a war against a certain group. If you want to fight choices being taken away, there are causes that need help right now, outside of courtrooms, people who are working to change that, and they don’t require defending neglect of anyone.
@bolwerk – I agree, personally, so why are we looking at the maximum sentence and assuming that’s the desired outcome here for anyone involved? Charges were brought, conviction and sentencing are completely separate and where the system is set up to account for extenuating circumstances like intent and personal loss.
As an aside, how are people forced into treatment programs? Generally with criminal charges and a court order I believe.
——-
Most of the worry about this being a move against all women seems to stem from the thinking that this is a slippery slope. If pregnant women can’t do cocaine or meth today, what’s next?
So far, nothing is next. No other group is let off the hook for cocaine or meth use. If they hurt someone while doing it, they get prosecuted.
This isn’t related to the question, but it reminds me of how senator Richard Ross is trying to pass some law that, during divorce, you’re not aloud to date, or have sex unless a judge signs a permission. WHAT. My God, this disgusts me.
@Symbeline – google that – it’s just not true
Contrary to what you might gather from phrases such as “proposed by state Senator Richard Ross,” “Senator Richard J. Ross proposed,” and “If Massachusetts State Sen. Richard J. Ross gets his way,” Ross did not sponsor the bill, and he does not support it. In fact, the bill has no legislative sponsors, no support, and is in no way under consideration by anybody.
The bill was submitted under the Commonwealth’s “right of free petition” by Robert LeClair, an 83-year-old former Wrentham selectman of strong opinions, who was president for years of an organization devoted to fathers and custody rights. Massachusetts, with its nearly 400-year devotion to self-governance, populist energy, and participatory citizenship—many towns still decide things by show of hands at meetings open to all residents—is unsurprisingly one of the few states that offers its citizens a direct avenue to submit legislation for consideration. The only barrier is that a state legislator must actually file the paperwork, but that does not constitute or indicate sponsorship, support, or approval. From what I gather checking around with some current and former staffers, many legislators aren’t even aware that they are allowed to deny a citizen petition request; others are aware but choose a blanket policy of approving all constituents who petition. “Whenever I receive a bill from a citizen, I will file the bill,” state senator Will Brownsberger, co-chairman of the Joint Judiciary Committee, tells me. “I don’t think that most legislators see themselves as a gateway for those.”
@funkdaddy: some people may need to be “forced” into treatment programs through diversion programs. Many people have incentive to clean up, and would be open to it with some public outreach – I think pregnant women might be high on that list.
@funkdaddy Maybe he supports it, maybe he doesn’t. I did look it up, and I DID see one source to say that he does not support this…but the suggestion for said law still exists. Some one somewhere is wanting this to happen. No matter how futile it may be, which I hope it is.
@GloPro: that didn’t seem to link anywhere in particular.
Try this
It links for me. Weird.
@funkdaddy Any woman who has a miscarriage. Any pregnant woman.
@cazzie – you think there’s a war against pregnant women who have miscarriages?
I don’t understand.
I need to add that regarding miscarriage I think it is horrendous, ridiculous, stupid, and ignorant that the state can do anything legally against a woman. Somewhere between 20–30% of pregnancies miscarry. The number is huge. It happens in nature all the time.
Giving birth to a baby that is drug addicted or has obvious abnormalities due to a mother’s abuse to her own body is another thing.
@jerv I think most pro-choice people are focused on the mother’s right over her own body and not whether or not her fetus is a life or not. A lot of people both pro-choice and pro-life have a problem with children being brought into the world in bad situations. Pro-life seems to not care as much about “quality” of life in that they would rather keep someone alive in all situations, even if they are heavily handicapped, mentally of physically disabled, or in pain.
Let’s just pass a bunch of laws that don’t affect the decisions we already make for ourselves. XD
@funkdaddy I’m saying that this has the potential to make every women who has a miscarriage a target for prosecution. Someone, their doctor or the very poorly trained ‘coroner’ can point to some quasi issue and the woman will be charged with the murder of her child. How do you NOT understand that this whole issue stinks like a rancid pile of discarded tissue used to mop up masturbation cum.
@JLeslie Here’s what I understand from all I’ve heard- that all life given (from God) is precious, some even take that to mean animals and don’t eat meat, so it varies person-to-person.
Personally, I think we have a right to life and a right to die as well, which means if the quality of life is poor based on my own personal defination (see living wills), then I should be allowed to die.
“The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion, self defense and the morality of war.” Wiki
@GloPro Is that like dentures for the ones that have lost their naturally occurring teeth?
@funkdaddy I do not believe there is a war against women. However, I do think there is an effort by many, mostly males, to put women back in their place, 10 paces to the rear and subservient to the male of the species.
There are many out there, again, mostly men, who fear the truly independent woman. One who is fully capable of making her own decisions and does not need the permission or approval of a male before acting. One of the main ways of accomplishing this is to limit their sexuality, something that fear of pregnancy helped to do in the past.
But today with a variety birth control methods available that help alleviate this fear, women have more say over who they have sex with and when they have sex and this frightens those controlling males.
Thus the need to try to limit birth control methods by denying access to them or, if they go ahead and have sex anyway, to punish women by making have the child or, as in this case locking them up for failing to have one. The hope being that by making an example of her it will help terrify other women into fearing the same consequences.
If you gals would just do as you are told, when you are told, the world would be a more perfect place. For all of us.
@cazzie – My wife has had three miscarriages, no one has tried to bring criminal charges. Now she takes care of babies born too soon, some of them as a result of drug use. It’s heartbreaking and unnecessary.
The common thread with cases like the one in the article isn’t that the people being prosecuted are women, or are pregnant, or that they have miscarriages, it’s not race, income, education or age. The common thread is that they’ve done something to harm themselves and the baby they’re carrying, usually something that is illegal in it’s own right.
I don’t agree with prosecuting this particular woman for murder, but I’m tired of the internet outrage regarding everything. I don’t think it’s out of line to say it’s a more serious offense to do illegal drugs while pregnant, just like it’s a more serious offense to assault someone with a weapon, or in a sexual manner.
If someone would like to champion the cause of helping pregnant mothers who use drugs, that’s great, get out and do it. It won’t happen from behind a keyboard or by insulting me.
@rojo – I’m not sure if you’re saying I’m one of “those”. I am not. My mom kicks ass, my wife is learning to kick ass, and I hope my daughter is more accomplished and competent than I’ve ever been. Those are the three most important people in my life and I can assure you, none walk behind me unless they want some shade. I don’t see what you’ve said has to do with what I’ve said directly, so I’d rather assume we’re on the same page. Cool?
I don’t think most of the people wanting to make abortion illegal and related are trying to keep women down or in their place. I don’t think they look at it that way or even secretly desire to control women. They just have a religious obsession with pregnancy, and all human life. Many of them don’t understand the science of fetal growth, but many do and still are against abortion. I do think some of them are “punishment” oriented and if a woman becaomes pregnant by mistake that’s her problem and she has to deal with the consequence of pregnancy.
@JLeslie For me personally, the issue is more about pregnancy being 100% preventable in normal circumstances.
My mother could easily have given in to my biological father’s urging and went along with an abortion, but she chose not to do so for religious reasons, for which I am thankful.
@KNOWITALL I guess my point is that when the 16 year old screws up, because she is impulsive, ignorant, in denial, or pressured and winds up pregnant does she have to live with her “mistake.” I hate to call a baby a mistake, I just mean the mistake of not doing what would have been responsible. It happens to adults too. Adults get pregnant by accident all the time. Usually they were not careful, rarely it is because birth control failed, but that does happen also.
I am troubled by the fact that the defendant is (1) young; and (2) black. On both counts she is liable to victimization. The second of @ragingloli‘s links leads to an article from the Mississippi Law Journal Vol. 82:7 (2013). What this article says, if true, makes the issue of fetal rights almost irrelevant. This woman is being tried because she is poor and black. At the time of the indictment she was 16. Had she been a daughter of a middle class family, probably white, she might not have been charged. This is not a racist rant. This has to do with the administration of justice. No public good will be had by putting this woman in jail for life. The evidence suggests that the cocaine use had nothing to do with the accident during the birth (the umbilical cord around the baby’s neck). One must ask, therefore, if a conviction will protect the lives of future fetuses. I doubt it very much.
@JLeslie That is exactly what it’s about, and of course it’s a personal choice. Some have supportive families, some get kicked out to the street. Which is why you’ll never see me protesting outside a clinic or anything like that, I’m not going to judge when I don’t know all the facts.
Of course the problem I have with RTL is that they don’t always consider that some kids can’t even talk to their parents, and that some parents are not supportive at all. (Which is how I define ‘live with her mistake’.)
The problem I have with Pro-Choice is that I don’t believe enough thought is put into the termination of a viable life.
As you know, I’m sure, when I was raped, I was on birth control but he didn’t use a condom, so there was a possibilty of pregnancy, but at that point I decided that it must have been part my deity’s plan for me if it happened.
@KNOWITALL So, your morality is right FOR EVERYONE? I’m sure that you would disagree with people imposing their morality on others if not for the fact that this particular case pushes a morality that matches your own.
@jerv I’m under the impression @KNOWITALL doesn’t want to impose her morality on others.
@jerv I didn’t say that, nor do I think that. I’m sure most people would agree that the best thing would be for no abortions to ever be necessary, but at this point in time, that is not the case.
@JLeslie Thanks.
If you really really believe that abortion is murder… is it moral to sit by while it happens?
Why are pro choice people so militant? (present company excluded)
I beleive abortion is murder after 3 months of prgnancy, even so it should be legal up to 3 or 4 or 5 months. I just think the tactics used by well… liberals in general is shameful.
yeah, so shameful of liberals to bomb abortion clinics
oh wait.
@herculies Which tactics do you mean? I agree some liberals are too extreme about many things, and how they handle things is less than favorable, but on abortion? I just can’t think of an example where I think liberals are militant. I think the far right is so horrible on abortion. Far right, not republicans in general, but the part of the party who pickets clinics, constantly tries to tread on the lawson the land regarding abortion, puts up pictures of full grown babies and implies that is inside a pregnant woman at 2 weeks. All sorts of lies and misinformation. Even Ronald Reagan wanted Surgeon General Koop to lie about abortion, which Koop refused to do! Reagan wanted him to say abortion posed a risk to the woman. Koop was against abortion, but he would not lie to the American public as a medical doctor himself and charged with being responsible for the health of our citizenry. It’s part of the reason Koop eventually left his position. That and how Reagan and Bush Sr. handled the AIDS crisis.
@KNOWITALL If I honestly thought you were the pushy, preachy type, I wouldn’t even bother. Sometimes I just poke hard to get someone to expound a little more, and I’m most likely to do that with people that are rational/reasonable enough to be worth listening to.
@herculies Just as a perspective thing,
If they really really believe that murder is so abhorrent… then why they not up in arms about ANY attempt to take the country to war or for the death penalty or for welfare being used to keep children and their parents alive or providing a fair and equitable wage so that families can provide food for those children they have or to have birth control ubiquitous to keep the need for abortion down?
Why anti-choice people are so militant?. Why can they not find some common ground that a compromise can be reached.
Oh wait, we did. Then the anti-choice group wanted to reset the rules.
I believe it should not be up to you or anyone else who is not pregnant to make that decision for someone who is and I think the tactics used by Conservative Christian Right Wing Republicans in general are shameful.
Or are we just talking past each other here?
Just goes to say women do not have full custody of their own bodies. If miscarriage wasn’t self induced, they could just prosecute them for something they had no control over.
Let’s all just cry about the sanctity of life, and then kill people who work in abortion clinics. Logical.
@jerv I have to admit that sometimes I edit my answers because I’m on a liberal site, and I already know all the arguments.
@herculies What I have discovered is that most pro-choice people don’t mind what an individual does with their own body, it’s trying to vote down Roe V Wade, pushing our religious beliefs onto the general populace via votes that really gets them riled up.
Obviously people making the statements about clinic bombings have surely researched enough to know that it happens in other countries and is a form of terrorism that normal people don’t condone.
”a form of terrorism that normal people don’t condone.”
Not openly
@ragingloli You have a very strange perception of right-wingers.
right-wing = authoritarian
Normal people are typically at least somewhat right-wing. Many people with more egregiously authoritarian views (racism, sexism, homophobia, eugenics, rape/murder fantasies) learn to hide them in polite company. So @ragingloli is probably right: more people probably appreciate bombing abortion clinics than will ever admit it.
Some forms of authoritarianism, like transphobia and class chauvinism, are even widely socially acceptable still, of course.
@bolwerk That doesn’t mean we condone murder guys, seriously, even amongst ourselves, it is one of the commandments you know. I watched the Dr. Tilly movie and although abortion may not be something I’d choose for myself, I certainly wouldn’t harass people trying to go or anything.
I do know there are groups that do that, but please, try to understand not all of us take it to that level. I mean not all liberals lay down in front of tanks and bomb animal research labs.
@KNOWITALL: I didn’t say every right-winger takes it to that level. Obviously liberals don’t. But the right-wingers who do are probably significantly under-reported.
@bolwerk I don’t know. Here is what I have seen on the flip side. A women I worked with in NC, her husband was a minister and she also a very religious woman. She told me one day that the night before she had been up late because her neice had come to her very distraught about an abortion she had a couple years before. It wasn’t regret exactly, she just felt so badly because of how she was raised in her religion and something had triggered her to become extremely upset. My coworker told me how she tried to comfort her. My coworker never once showed me any signs of standing in judgement of her, and wanted to relieve her neice of her guilt.
Another time I went to a church event with a girlfriend. One of those mega churches. It must have been 1,000 or more of us woman at a fashion seminar and dinner. They wove in some “Christian” stuff and one of the things they spoke of was to the women in the audience who had had abortions. I was a little shocked it was brought up, but anyway there was no fire and brimstone about it. It was more about forgiveness and helping others to avoid that situation, but no hard sell in standing up in arms to block other people or to Condemn anyone.
@bolwerk Most theists I know seriously come from a place of love like @JLeslie says not a place of hate. Remember, I’m in the Bible Belt, you’d think harassment or even violence could occur when there’s 436 churches and on abortion clinic, doesn’t happen.
Sheesh, I didn’t even mention religion above.
@JLeslie: flip side of what? I don’t exactly subscribe to the notion that Christians (or other religious people) are uniquely guilty of widespread bigotry. I realize religiosity is largely hijacked by the nutters. I consider religious stances besides the point of ideology, at least mostly.
All I said was more people are going to chuckle about abortion clinic bombings than will admit to chuckling about them. Fewer still will actually bomb anything.
@KNOWITALL: well, even in the deep south, I would guess overt displays of public racism are frowned upon. But read even mainstream Internet forums and it’s not exactly hard to find such opinions when anonymity is perceived. People aren’t going to say things they think are socially unacceptable, even if they privately believe them.
In any case, my take on it in a nutshell: are authoritarians likely to be religious? Probably. Are religious people inherently authoritarian? No.
@bolwerk Do people bomb abortion clinics or get a secret chuckle about it if they aren’t religious? It is about the religious, I don’t see how it isn’t.
I do think the religion helps to encite this sort of criminal behavior and heightened feelings of desperation about doing something to prevent more abortions. On a smaller scale I know more than one woman who after having an abortion felt she would never have another child because of the severe guilt they went through, because of their religion. I also know one woman, a friend of mine, we were teens at the time when she had her abortion. Eventually, distraught, she revealed to someone in her church what she had done, the woman convinced her she would not be able to have children because the abortion probably damaged her. She then wound up accidently pregnant again because she thought she was infertile based on this woman’s stupidity.
So, there certainly is some annoying, stupid, damaging, things in the churches regarding abortion, but for the most part I don’t think most people are walking around wanting or happy a clinic is blown up.
@bolwerk Most people that are pro-life are pretty religious, that may be the tie in for us that you are missing.
I’m not a racist and I’m not a domestic terrorist just because I am a Republican, it’s very offensive to me that that is your perception. And no, I don’t associate with anyone that I perceive to be racist or prone to any kind of violence against women.
Growing up here, I have been around people from many paths of life, some dangerous, and I have yet to hear anyone say “Hey, want to go mess with the abortion clinic?”
I know it happens, not denying that, but that is those individuals not all of us as a group.
Nutty pro-lifers may be religious, but I don’t know that I buy they do it because they are religious. They are antisocial, and religious belief conveniently justifies their antisocial impulses. Russian communists didn’t like abortion either, and they were theologically atheists.
@KNOWITALL: Where did I say anything about Republikans? But, yes, many (not all) Republikans are racist. Many small-R American republicans (they’re called Democrats for some reason) are racist too though. Remember in the lead up to the 2008 election during the Democratic primary? Hillary caught on strongly with blue collar white union types, and her backers started using racial insinuations against Obama.
So, surprise: Democrats can be right-wing too! For that matter, African Americans make up one of the most religious, and conservative, demographics in American society. African American culture has hangups that make many of them prone to homophobia and misogyny. Yet they might be the most reliable Democratic bloc.
@bolwerk Religous people are anti-social?
I typically associate right-wing with Republicans like most people silly.
I’m not getting into the whole minority thing, Lord knows the parties are already playing those games enough.
@KNOWITALL: Really? You are not reading very well today. “They” refers to “nutty pro-lifers.” I don’t think all anti-abortion choice people are necessarily nuts. Though I would point out many of the crazier ones probably are exemplars of the Todestrieb, so the label “pro-life” is a terrible word choice for them. They hate life and seek to subjugate it, and in extreme cases are driven to eradicate it.
“Right-wing” just means “authoritarian.” Democrats may be less authoritarian than Republikans, but they are both right-wing. For some reason, so-called Libertarians™ are often more authoritarian than both, so I think we can put typically American TV news descriptors in the “useless” category. :-\
@bolwerk Sheesh, I didn’t even mention religion above.
Join the club, some things always get science or religion injected into.
Nutty pro-lifers may be religious, but I don’t know that I buy they do it because they are religious.
Nutty pro-lifers, does that mean we get to call those who have abortions selfish? I mean, since we are adding attributes to people…..
They are antisocial, and religious belief conveniently justifies their antisocial impulses.
Antisocial, interesting, who is killing unborn humans because they are an inconvenience? How social is that?
@Hypocrisy_Central: No. And, speaking of injection, who said anything about convenience? Presumably women have all kinds of reasons to exercise their right to an abortion. They don’t have to run their rights to vote, breathe, speak, and poop by you either so you can tell them from on high whether their decisions to do such things are selfish or convenient.
@bolwerk I’ve got a cold, so maybe you’re right. We can agree to disagree as I don’t know any nutty pro-lifers but I know plenty of pro-lifers, but none have done anything wrong or illegal or harbored violent thoughts, it’s more of a sadness at the choice made.
I think that some people get frustrated and that leads them to anger, and those people may not be able to control those violent tendencies, and much like other terrorists, are willing to die to prove a point.
Rennie Gibbs versus the State of Mississippi does not sound righteous. Indeed, the phrases abuse of process, and malicious prosecution occur to me. The case is most unlikely, to this non-lawyer, to affect the rights of U.S. women in any way – unless they live in Mississippi.
Flutherites, I bring the following document to your attention. Perhaps you will enjoy it as much as I did. The Brief of Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Social Workers – and many other interested groups – provides arguments against this prosecution. One of its strongest points:
”Amici believe there is a strong societal interest in protecting the health of children. In the view of amici, however, such protective instincts are undermined, not advanced, by prosecuting pregnant women and girls who experience pregnancy losses that may have been caused by a vast range of conditions, circumstances and actions they may experience during pregnancy. Indeed, the policy of prosecuting pregnant women and girls with drug dependency or other health problems is contrary to law, scientific research, and the consensus judgment of medical practitioners and professional organizations. Furthermore, given the paucity of treatment available in Mississippi, low income women and children would be particularly vulnerable to punishment if unable to access drug treatment or prenatal care due to barriers of poverty. This prosecution jeopardizes the well-being of women and their children.
“This amicus brief underscores the fact that the prosecution of Ms. Gibbs’ lacks any legal, medical or scientific foundation. Interpreting Mississippi’s depraved heart murder statute to apply to the context of pregnancy will lead to absurd and dangerous public health consequences. Such prosecutions deter pregnant women from seeking prenatal care and drug and alcohol treatment. And they create a disincentive for pregnant women who do seek medical care from disclosing important information about drug use to health care providers out of fear that the disclosure will lead to possible criminal sanctions.” (p. 2).
@bolwerk And, speaking of injection, who said anything about convenience?
Spoken or not, aside from saving the mother’s life, the action speaks for itself.
They don’t have to run their rights to vote, breathe, speak, and poop by you either so you can tell them from on high whether their decisions to do such things are selfish or convenient.
There did I say they had to run it by anyone? If someone is going to cheat, be Boorish, selfish, mean or whatever, they do that on their own; not you or I.
@Hypocrisy_Central: I’ve never really seen anything about why women choose abortion, so I couldn’t say. But going through a stressful surgical procedure hardly seems like something done for mere convenience.
You’re imagining women getting abortions being like, “Yeah, so, I have a manicure at 3pm, but maybe I can fit the trip to GAP in before my abortion at 5pm.”
@KNOWITALL Of course this is a “liberal” site. The Northeast and the West coast are more liberal than the South and Midwest, and most of the industrialized world is even more liberal. We have jellies from all over the world, not just the American heartland. By the same token, everybody is short when you’re 7 feet tall. It’s all relative.
@jerv I believe you could leave out the word “industrialized”. Except in the middle east.
Abortion really riles everybody.
@rojo I’m not familiar enough with non-industrialized nations as a whole to say, hence the wording.
My boyfriend brought up the idea of someone unable to afford healthcare losing their baby from some form of preventable condition. (I think the Affordable Care Act may have taken care of this sort of thing from happening but I’m not sure.) I think suing the State for negligence under that circumstance would be a good start to quid-pro-quo. (Honestly, if anyone replies by telling me that if you can’t afford healthcare in the USA you shouldn’t be having babies, I will arrange a special form of hell for you. The special kind.)
if you can’t afford healthcare in the USA you shouldn’t be having babies, I will arrange a special form of hell for you. @cazzie – oh, I agree with that.
These charges were dropped…
Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge Jim Kitchens dismissed Gibbs’ case on Thursday, saying there was no law in Mississippi that clearly applied. He pointed to a recent Supreme Court case, Mississippi v. Buckhalter, in which manslaughter charges were dismissed against another woman who had given birth to a stillborn baby after taking drugs while she was pregnant.
“Gibbs was indicted prior to Buckhalter and the law was unclear in Mississippi as to the appropriate charge, if any, to be levied when a pregnant woman allegedly consumed illegal drugs and allegedly caused the death of her unborn child,” Kitchens said in the ruling.
Answer this question 
