Mother of Killed Unborn Twins Speaks Out (about Vermont law)

[Kadie]

Mother of Killed Unborn Twins Speaks Out

Hanover, New Hampshire - August 12, 2009

A Bennington mother who lost her unborn twins in a car crash two days ago is speaking out -- about her grief -- and about Vermont law.

snip...
"To me they are babies. They have the hair, they have the eyes, they have the nose, they have perfect little lips. They have fingers, toes, toe nails, all the right anatomy."

Police says the 22-year-old woman who struck the Blairs was under the influence of drugs. She's been processed for Driving Under the Influence. But-- she has not been charged in connection with the death of the twins.

"They would have been here with me had this not happened and I don't how Vermont can say they are not babies," Blair said tearfully.

That's because according to Vermont Law-- the twins were still in their mothers womb-- and not considered persons.

"I know that they need to go by what is in place now, and it may not help my case or it may not help somebody else's case right away, but I hope they stop and rethink it and at least adjust something."

more...
http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=10921679

[Hepburn]

1. Sorry about her loss....

...and it is very sad. But...that does NOT make a fetus a person. A corpse also has the same characteristics she cites and that does not mean that someone can kill a corpse either.

JMHO

Sorry to be so blunt...but the RWs keep pushing and pushing and we need to push back.

:hi:

[newtothegame]

2. A corpse would never be someone's child in the future though...n/t

[Hepburn]

3. Who knows if these twins would have been born alive.

Same difference IMO: A fetus is NOT a person...and it cannot be murdered.

All the anti-choicer, forced birthers want to do is to have a fetus so recognized in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. Dangerous ground to go there. Yes, a tragedy ~~ but so is forcing women to resort to knitting needles and wire coat hangers.

JMHO

[newtothegame]

8. Fair enough. What's your personal opinion on a case like Lacey Peterson?

[Hepburn]

18. Feticide is a statutory crime in California.

I have some problems with the statute in that it applies even when the perpetrator is NOT aware that the woman is pregnant ~~ even at times she does not know she is pregnant.

Crimes to me carry a necessary element of intent...and that does not seem appropriate to me to charge feticide unless the intent was to harm/kill the fetus and the death of the fetus results.

[newtothegame]

30. Thanks for your thoughts! :) n/t

[charlie]

19. It'd do a whole lot more than overturn Roe

It would give the state "compelling interest" grounds to assert authority over a pregnant woman's activities. Like the kidnapping and forced medical procedures a FLA court ordered on a woman recently.

[anigbrowl]

101. There's a reasonable probability that they would

The law can handle this woman's case (and the other driver's responsibility and criminal liability) in a better way without needing to overturn roe Vs Wade. Your arguments in this thread are callous and insensitive to the very real tragedy that has befallen this woman.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I think we are in a terrible predicament here because we do need to be able to

maintain the right to choose, but the by-product of the "not a person" stance is that for the women who wanted to go to term we are dismissing the terrible pain of their loss (and it is indeed terrible) and denying them an opportunity for justice in cases like these.

I really wish I had an answer for the situation, but I don't see how we can both call a pregnancy a person with rights and yet not all at the same time. :(

[Hepburn]

20. Civil courts offer the relief as well.

And...there is a DUI involved...and there will be a punishment for that crime. It is a felony because the mother was injured ~~ regardless of the harm to the twin fetuses. Therefore, there is no light hand slap in this case. The mom has a fx'd spine ~~ that is no little bruise or small problem.

So there is punishment and there is also monetary compensation ~~ restitution ~~ in the criminal matter for the harm caused.

Sorry, but allowing a fetus to be classed a a person entitled to protection crosses the line with me. The next thing that will happen is that we can kiss Roe v. Wade good-bye.

JMHO

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. What about emotional distress? Could you effectively make a case for

the emotional effect on the mother (and father?) for the loss of the pregnancy without actually asserting personhood of the fetuses?

[surrealAmerican]

69. I don't see why not.

The loss of the fetuses could qualify causing distress just as easily as the loss of a body part, or the physical pain of the victim's injuries. It should not require fetal personhood.

[GreenPartyVoter]

88. That's good to know. I think this may be the best answer to how to handle maintaining the

right to choose and yet still allow women whose pregnancies were forcefully terminated to have some closure.

[Raineyb]

78. That can easily be done in a civil suit.

They do take emotional distress into consideration.

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. Thank you for letting me know that. :^)

[Kerrytravelers]

4. I'm sorry for her loss.

And not to sound unkind, but what she is asking is simply asking for too much. This country is too immature to distinguish the difference between fetuses in a car crash not making it to full term and the medical choice of a woman to terminate.

If we were more mature in this country, then perhaps there could be something in place for fetuses who don't make it to term based on wishes apart from the mother's in non-medical conditions. However, we have people protesting affordable health care and calling our President a Kenyan Fraud. Clearly, we are too immature to have a reasonable discussion based on logic and common sense.

When the other teams grows the hell up, perhaps a discussion can be held. Until then, I'm sorry for Ms. Blair and others in her position. I can intellectually understand her point of view, but currently, I am unwilling to work on a solution because of the base level of discourse in this country.

[Realityhack]

11. Well put. n/t

[Carl Skan]

13. Maturity = Double Standard

.

[Realityhack]

16. I don't think so.

There is a difference between ME smashing all the windows in MY house and someone else doing so. And that is not a double standard.

Same goes for say an ear piercing. Done with my consent fine... done against my will... your in trouble.

[Carl Skan]

37. And your window is still treated as property regardless of whether

I smash it or you smash it. It doesn't suddenly become a person because I'm the one smashing it instead of you.

Treating a fetus as a child that has rights in one case but simply a part of the body in another is a double standard. The car accident resulted in a part of her body being damaged, nothing more, and the person responsible should be punished as such.

I'm not going to waste either of our time trying to get in a debate over abortion, I'm just arguing for consistency.

[Realityhack]

44. Ok I see what you are saying

I agree that the simply way to deal with it is to say that part of her body was irreparably damaged which avoids any touchy situation.

[Kerrytravelers]

48. You can not have consistency in two separate and completely different circumstances.

Having the same ultimate outcome, in this case the termination of a fetus, doesn't mean the set of circumstances are at all related.

You can not require a black-and-white set of consistent blanket rules unless, of course, you are against termination in all manners and all circumstances- in essence, you would then be against women making choices to terminate. If that is so, then it would be disingenuous to not state that directly. If that is not the case, and you are pro-choice, then you need to recognize that a fetus that doesn't make it to term as the result of an outside situation made against the mother's wishes is worlds away from a mother making a personal, medical decision and carrying out that medical decision in the care of a doctor and trained professionals.

[Carl Skan]

51. I agree that they are worlds away.

And that is why we don't punish women for having abortions but do punish people for bodily harm in cases such as this.

What constitutional argument can you make for that sudden granting of rights to somebody that didn't have rights until they were killed?

[Kerrytravelers]

55. So, if I'm reading you correctly, and tell me if I'm not, you don't think that the driver should be

held criminally responsible for the termination of the fetuses against the mother's will.

[Carl Skan]

63. For somebody that mentioned maturity half a dozen times in this thread

and complains about the level of discourse, you sure do try to change the discussion to personal opinion rather than the facts at hand a lot. Perhaps those you speak with would be able to maintain a more mature level of discourse if you would stick to the subject?

I am arguing against you original point in #4 that maturity is needed to grant a fetus rights in a situation like this. You have yet to argue how a person is granted rights under the constitution due to the circumstances of their death.

[Kerrytravelers]

70. It is clear that you do not want to respond to a simple question.

I simply asked if I understood your position correctly, and instead and responding politely so that further conversation could be had, you instead chose to come back at me like this. Quite frankly, your response makes no sense.

I have no idea why the idea of needed maturity is necessary for a nuanced discussion. Do you find the current national climate of health care townhall discussions mature?

I have not personally gone after you in this subthread, yet you chose to go after me. And because there is a Moderator icon next to my handlename, I am going to stop replying to your posts, unless they are truly in the spirit of discussion and not an attempt to goad the Moderator, start a flamewar, or generally get into a personal grievance.

I'm sorry the discussion took such a turn. That is too bad, since I genuinely was interested in understanding your underlying position and thoughts.

[Carl Skan]

74. Huh? "What constitutional argument can you make for that sudden grantin..."

And you have the audacity to claim I'm the one that didn't respond to a simple question?

Excuse me, I asked you a question first about the actual subject that you did not respond to. Instead of replying to the question that was about the actual subject, you asked about my personal views which are absolutely irrelevant to a civil discourse. I didn't take the bait to make it a discussion of personal beliefs in your previous post and I didn't take it this time either.

It's sad that you had no desire to actually discuss the subject without bringing personal beliefs into it. It appears I was interested in discussing the issue and you were interested in discussing my personal beliefs. Any discussion on abortion and choice issues turns ugly once personal beliefs are brought in to replace right and wrong. That's likely why you have trouble finding people "mature" enough to discuss the subject with.

[Hepburn]

21. +1....well stated. n/t

[Sheepshank]

46. But if this is about choice

her choice was taken away by someone who had no right to interefere with her right to try and carry those children to term. Abortion is about choice too.

[Kerrytravelers]

52. No, a car crash isn't about choice. What we are talking about is making a law that could lead to the

repeal of Roe. Unfortunately, the anti-choice, forced birth crowd is constantly using situations like this to make parts of Roe illegal. They are taking this sad situation, twisting the emotions and using it for their own ends. The actual Ms. Blair is meaningless to them. It is only what she represents that they care about. She is their marketing tool.

The distinction being drawn here is the legal right to charge someone with murder when a fetus doesn't make it to term. If we had more maturity in this country, and fewer people using people like Ms. Blair as a marketing tool, perhaps something could be done. Unfortunately, we've seen what discussions of health care bring out in people. They are even holding signs wanting all forms and reasons for abortions from all health care reform. They're not interested in the medical choices of women. I can not imagine these same people in more nuanced discussions.

If this country could grow up and deal with nuance, perhaps situations like this could be used to create such laws as Ms. Blair suggests. However, I have very little faith in many of my fellow citizens.

[Sheepshank]

92. ok remove the car crash...an accident

what if a woman is pg and her unborn fetus is stabbed deliberately...lets say because the mother's partner suspects someone else is the father. Her choice has been forcably removed. I think this opens up the possibility of violence with (certain immunity), agaist women and their choice and desire to carry or attempt to carry a fetus to term. I don't see how addressing this can potentially damage Roe V Wade.

[Kerrytravelers]

97. The rw has been chipping away at Roe for years.

There are multiple pro-choice organizations that have been writing about this for decades, including, but not limited to the following:

http://www.now.org/
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
http://www.feminist.org/

[Arkana]

6. THEY HAVE TOENAILS BLAARGHHGAARGGHHH

No, sweetie--until they're born they're not babies.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I understand what you are saying but if I was still in mourning over a

lost pregnancy and read this, I would be really, really hurt.

[cbdo2007]

28. Right...um, actually they are babies. They just haven't been born yet.

If the mother's intention was to give birth to them then they are babies.

If the mother's intention is to abort them, they're fetuses.

[armyowalgreens]

35. Definitions don't change based on how a woman feels about abortion...

They are either babies or fetuses.

And technically, they are fetuses.

[Realityhack]

41. Nope.

They are one or the other. And the womans intentions have no bearing on what they physically are or are not.

[cbdo2007]

49. baby: - noun - 5. a human fetus

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby

[armyowalgreens]

54. That is not an official definition...

Besides the fact that "baby" isn't actually the technical term, you are using dictionary.com.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby
"Main Entry: 1ba·by
Pronunciation: \ˈbā-bē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : girl, woman —often used in address b : boy, man —often used in address
4 : person, thing <is one tough baby>
— ba·by·hood \-bē-ˌhu̇d\ noun
— ba·by·ish \-ish\ adjective"


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infant
technical term "infant"


Main Entry: 1in·fant
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English enfaunt, from Anglo-French enfant, from Latin infant-, infans, from infant-, infans, adjective, incapable of speech, young, from in- + fant-, fans, present participle of fari to speak — more at ban
Date: 14th century
1 : a child in the first period of life
2 : a person who is not of full age : minor



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: \ˈfē-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful — more at feminine
Date: 14th century
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embryo
Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: \ˈem-brē-ˌō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
Etymology: Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon, from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
Date: 1548
1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
2 : the young sporophyte of a seed plant usually comprising a rudimentary plant with plumule, radicle, and cotyledons
3 a : something as yet undeveloped b : a beginning or undeveloped state of something <productions seen in embryo during their out-of-town tryout period — Henry Hewes>




You really need to learn your definitions.

[LeftyMom]

96. No.

The expectant woman (and any other involved parties) might feel more mourning feelings if they had grown attached to the idea of raising the expected child than if they had no intention of doing so, but that's another thing entirely, is entirely subjective and should not effect the status of the pregnancy under the law.

[mamaleah]

34. They were 3rd trimester.

That means they were viable.

[proteus_lives]

39. Then other driver should be charged with murder or

vehicular manslaughter. Which ever is more appropriate.

[cbdo2007]

45. Not to many of the posters here....apparently they are expendable until they are born.

I'm glad some of these people weren't around the accident scene:

"Help, I was just in an accident. I need to get to the hospital to see if my babies were ok."

"Oh, they're just fetuses. Don't worry about it. Just go home and make some more if you want them. Accidents happen right?"

[Lars39]

50. So you want a person to be convicted for accidently killing a 6 mo fetus,

when there is no guarantee that the fetus would have made it full-term and survived outside of the womb? That's all kinds of fucked up, too.

[cbdo2007]

61. "no guarantee" - the probability is pretty high that it would have

What's fucked up is that you don't believe in a woman's choice to actually *have* their kid. I'm sure you've got some issues from something you've experienced which is driving all of this, but to just let a drunk driver kill some woman's fetuses and NOT get punished is really completely illogical.

[Lars39]

66. My "issue" is that there is no guaranteeing a pregnancy and live birth

until the baby is swaddled on the momma's chest. There are so many variables, so many things that can go wrong....to actually incarcerate someone for causing the death of a fetus that might not even be a live birth someday is wrong and is definitely a slippery slope.

[armyowalgreens]

68. I think it is should be a lesser penalty than murder.

But there is no doubt that the DUI suspect took something that rightfully belonged to the woman.

What that penalty should be is up for debate. I certainly have no clue what it should be.

[Lars39]

72. What if a woman has a single car accident that causes the death of a fetus.

No alcohol involved. Do you think she should be charged?

[armyowalgreens]

75. It depends on the nature of the accident...

There are plenty of fatal accidents where no one is charged. Most of the time, a simple lapse of concentration has horrific consequences.


But if there is a clear case of negligence, even without impairment by substances, you could make the case that criminal charges should be filed.

[armyowalgreens]

76. Hold on. Are you talking about the mother causing the accident?

[Lars39]

79. Yes.

Slippery slope...

[armyowalgreens]

82. Oh okay. I do not have a simple answer for that.

Questions of other parties having a vested interest in the fetus arise. Questions about any potential rights granted to the fetus arise.

Questions about the difference between certain stages of fetal development arise.


But the argument could be made that since she was the one that destroyed her own property, she should not be charged with anything. However, others would argue that it's not that straightforward.

[Lars39]

85. See, gets a little complicated, doesn't it.

Slippery slope I want to avoid...women could be charged for the accidental death of their own fetus.

[Kerrytravelers]

57. If you think that is what is being said here, I would suggest reading the thread again.

It is a bit more complicated then that.

[armyowalgreens]

58. You misrepresent our stance.

[Kerrytravelers]

60. The majority stance on this thread wasn't even read, let alone simply misrepresented.

I find the over-simplilfication of a complicated and tragic situation actually insulting to people who acknowledge the nuance and agony of Ms. Blair's situation.

[armyowalgreens]

62. Well, it certainly pisses me off when people think I don't care about the mother...

Because I do. Just like I care about every woman that gets an abortion.

[Kerrytravelers]

71. I'm with you on that. 100%.

Funny, isn't it. A nuance discussion among like-minded people can debase to "none of these people here really care about the mother." Can you imagine this same nuanced discussion with those townhall screamers we've been victims of the past few weeks? Yikes!

[anigbrowl]

102. Nice attitude you have going there. I hope this never happens to you

I'm not anti-abortion, but the way some people just blow off this woman's tragedy to uphold their political views is nauseating. I don't care if she's all kinds of fundamentalist crazy, nobody deserves to have their pregnancy terminated by a third party and the offending driver should not be able to escape criminal responsibility.

We have a law to cover this particular situation in California and it hasn't restricted women's ability to make choices and get an abortion at all.

[sakabatou]

7. From the great George Carlin:

"Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?'"

[sinkingfeeling]

9. She was over 6 months pregnant, so the law could be written to recognize the potential

life of a fetus in the 3rd. trimester.

[Realityhack]

12. That is what I was thinking as well.

Although that would just move the arbitrary point at which the driver would be charged by 3 months. You would still have the week short of the deadline case.

[aikoaiko]

10. I wish there were a clever way to protect the rights of women to control their bodies

and yet provide justice to people who are victimized by having their viable fetuses destroyed against their will.

There has to be a way....

[Kerrytravelers]

24. This is exatly how I feel, too.

I wish this country were mature enough to have the conversation. Unfortunatly, as we've seen, especially lately, this country has a long, long, long way to go to reach that level of maturity.

[orleans]

29. i wish that also. n/t

[mamaleah]

40. I agree. What about women who have boyfriends or husbands

that do not want them to have a child and intentionally cause them to miscarry?

[GodlyDemocrat]

56. Texas does it just fine

In Texas, according to the Penal Code, life begins at conception. Of course, Texas could leave it there and abortion would still be legal because the federal Constitution trumps state law. However, Texas goes one step further. A law cannot be construed to punish the mother for harming her fetus via other otherwise illegal avenues. So the mother cannot be punished for murder or endangering a child for, say, drug abuse that harms or kills her fetus aside from the traditional drug charge. Not all states follow this principle, including South Carolina. Additionally, some local prosecutors have misinterpreted our statutes to prosecute some cases as manslaughter against expectant mothers. Because these women have public defenders, they mistakenly plead guilty.

[Kerrytravelers]

65. Although, if as you stated, the law is nuanced, I still do not like the "life begins at conception"

inclusion. If chipped away at, this law could quickly morph into "all life begins at conception... period. No exceptions." Roe and various state laws have been chipped and stripped and limited. I want no definition of "life." That is where the trouble always starts.

[GodlyDemocrat]

99. Would you support life without parole for knowingly causing an involuntary miscarriage

Regardless of the legal verbiage to bring about this type of penalty ...

Personally, I would. If you knowingly attack a pregnant woman and because of that the woman has a miscarriage, you deserve to rot in jail for the rest of your life.

[Kerrytravelers]

105. With just what you've written in your post, there is no way I could have any informed opinion.

Trials reveal all kinds of information. I can not make any blanket statement regarding anything.

In terms of incarceration in America, I personally find the "...and throwing away the key" method we're currently employing completly ineffective. We're not making our society less violent, but instead increasing the violence and anger. But, really, incarceration is a whole other conversation. I'm not thinking this thread needs anymore subthreads! ;)


I guess I just can't get away from the legal verbiage. I understand your position, and I know what you're asking. I'm not being difficult, but legal verbiage has been my general position in this thread.

[GodlyDemocrat]

110. Fair enough

:)

[Kerrytravelers]

113. And personally, on an instinctual gut level, I'd like to take anyone who would harm a pregnant woman

into a dark alley and punch 'em one or two... but that would be wrong of me. :evilgrin:

[Realityhack]

14. I wonder if you could make a case...

for the fetus being property (obviously quite valuable) destroyed in the crash. Or a part of you that was destroyed and thus a personal injury.

Oh well. I agree with what was said up thread regarding the nation not being mature enough to understand the difference between willing and unwilling termination of pregnancy at this time.

[hedgehog]

15. What about a law covering someone causing the loss of

pregnancy against the mother's wishes? I'm certain the language would have to be fine tuned, but the driver of the car took something away from this woman.

[Realityhack]

17. See post #4 seems like a good law but there are issues.

at least for now there are.

[cbdo2007]

22. There should be a punishment for this...maybe reckless manslaughter or something?

Having an abortion is your choice. When someone kills your fetuses due to their recklessness, it is not your choice and they should be punished. I'm all for individual choice, but someone killing your kids that you intended to birth is murder.

The bible is not clear on abortion but the bible verse that many christians use to say abortion is wrong actually applies in this case:

Exodus 21:22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

[Berry Cool]

26. There should be some sort of punishment for terminating a woman's pregnancy against her will.

Why not? Why not couch it in those terms? That way we don't get into the issue of fetal personhood, and we couch it in terms of yet another form of defending a woman's right to control her own body. In short, she should be able to control when she is pregnant and when she is not pregnant, and when she is pregnant, she should be able to carry the pregnancy to term if that is her wish without having it terminated against her will.

It would be illegal to kidnap a woman, knock her unconscious and perform an unwanted abortion on her. No? So, it should be illegal to act in a destructive way that causes a pregnancy she desired not to come to term. That would cover everything from out-and-out murder of a pregnant woman to impaired driving that resulted in the death of a pregnant woman and her fetus or that caused a miscarriage or required she receive surgery that compelled surgical removal of a still unviable fetus, inevitably resulting in its death.

[cbdo2007]

32. Right, you said that well. In fact, it's strange that so many pro-choice...

people are posting negatively about this, when the woman's choice was to have the babies. Someone forced her to NOT have the babies by killing them, so we should stick up for people's choice and fight for it whether it is their choice to have the baby or abort it.

Flippantly blowing off this woman for being upset that her unborn babies died is certainly a step in the wrong direction in clarifying these terms and situations so that choice can be had by all.

[Kerrytravelers]

77. Ms. Blair is not being flippantly blown off. Her situation has been tragically acknowledged.

However, reality is a bit more nuanced. If there is blame to be found, I'd suggest looking rightward, where Roe has been under attack for decades. The National Organization for Women has written often about the chipping away of Choice. That plays a huge role in my personal perception of Ms. Blair's situation.

Here is the NOW site on Reproductive Rights: http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/

[anigbrowl]

103. Sorry, disagree. Messages like #6 (& others) are indeed 'flippantly blow(ing) off' this tragedy

[Kerrytravelers]

106. While I am not particularly a fan of post #6, I think the idea that posters have been

flippantly blowing off this tragedy is unfair to those who have had some interesting points and interesting discussion.

I also think it is fair to say that tone and intention isn't always apparent on a computer screen, so I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. In regards to post #6, I see that as more of a reference to the film Juno, when one character used the concept of fingernails to dissuade Juno from terminating. With that in mind, I took this as a frustrated post at those in the forced-birth movement who want to force their belief that a fetus, regardless of gestation period, is a full human life on all women and their private medical decisions. So, the post is frustrated and angry, but not flippant. And the immediate response to post #6 took issue with the tone, but without using more accusatory vernacular.

[Kerrytravelers]

73. I agree. I'd love to see this happen. However, the rw zealots have been chipping away at Roe for

decades. Until choice is a lot more secure, I hazzard a step in a national debate on this topic. And it's too bad, as Ms. Blair could use some justice for her tragedy.

[Kerrytravelers]

27. I agree with the spirit of your statement.

But please, don't bring the Bible into the discussion. You and I may be able to have reasonable discourse, but there too many people in this country who will use the Bible to strip rights and destroy lives... which is always intriguing to me, since I really can't figure out why exactly Jesus is against health care... :shrug:

[cbdo2007]

31. That's exactly why I *did* bring the Bible into it.

Cause when you actually read it and interpret it like it's written, it matches the liberal philosophy. Jesus WAS for health care for all and against people being rich. Now, I don't know how Jesus felt about abortion but the verse above is the only one in the Bible dealing specifically with harming a fetus and it just so happens to fit this situation exactly.

[Minimus]

93. That is not a proper interpretation of Exodus 21:22-24

It is what the pro-lifers want it to mean but the "life" that is referred to in Verse 23 is the life of the mother. Causing the death of the fetus is punished with a fine but if the mother dies THEN it is commanded that a life be taken for a life.

The bible distinguishes between the the value of the fetus (a fine) and the value of the mother's life (another life). I use Exodus 21:22-24 to drive the point to my right-wing religious zealot acquaintances all the time. They can usually only answer "Well that is the Old Testament". I love how they can pick and choose between the Old and the New to fit their needs.

The NIV changed the part about miscarriage/fruit departing to "giving birth prematurely" to blur the meaning. This is so it can be argued that a premature baby may have lived.



Exodus 21

King James Version
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Contemporary English Version
22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.

New Advent Version
22 If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

The New Revised Standard Version
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

The Message
22 When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation.

New International Version
22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows

[mamaleah]

33. She's was in the 3rd trimester. The babies were viable.

We do not even allow abortion in the 3rd trimester UNLESS it is to save the life of the mother. Yet the asshat who hit her might get what.....a fine?

I hope the little twit who caused this grief feels nothing but shame and sadness her whole miserable life.

[Lars39]

36. Viable does not always equal a live birth, though.

Still a lot that can go wrong.

[mamaleah]

38. A lot can go wrong after birth too.

There should be something that protects women from forced abortion as well. Choices need to be protected.

And pieces of shit like the drunk driver need to get more than a fine.

[Kerrytravelers]

42. But if we make it a law that terminating a fetus in the third trimester is murder, there goes any

medical arguments for third trimester terminations. If this country was more mature, perhaps a reasonable nationwide discussion could be held. I wish it could. But unfortunately, this country is far too immature to handle such a topic. It's too bad, because Ms. Blair could be better served with such a law. In essence, those who would use her as their poster-child are inhibiting her situation with their immaturity.

[mamaleah]

47. They are restricted.

Unless to save the life of the mother, I do not know of any states that allow for 3rd trimester abortion for any other reason.

[Kerrytravelers]

80. To my knowledge, 3rd trimester terminations are for medical resons only.

However, as I've stated upthread, because of the constant attack on Roe, any legislation must be air-tight when written so choice is fully protected.

And given the currently state of maturity from the right-wing, and their inability or refusal to acknowledge nuance, I'm not sure I want to tread that water yet.

And yes, it is unforuntate to women such as Ms. Blair. But we have the rw to blame for that, not pro-choice people wanting to fight to keep choice legal and to stop the chipping away at Roe.

[mamaleah]

86. I think her best course will be in civil court then. Bury the driver in fines and fees

That's the only punishment that may very well be available.

[Kerrytravelers]

87. I'm all for civil court. I think she should go after the driver for everything they've got or ever

will have. This driver took away her potential happiness and joy and future plans because they selfishly chose to drive under the influence. Go. For. It. Ms. Blair. That's my position.

[mamaleah]

89. Mine as well. I am just waiting for the

post telling me that's not justifiable because they were only fetuses or that deaths caused by DUI are not worthy of that form of punishment.

[Kerrytravelers]

91. I don't know why you would be waiting for a post like that.

Overall, the posters in this thread have stated their position of being sorry for Ms. Blair's loss. They have also stated that this is a gray area in terms of choice and Roe.

No one has said anything regarding DUI not being punishable and that the unwanted termination of these fetuses (unwanted by Ms. Blair, to clarify,) isn't sad and tragic.

[JonQ]

43. It is an interesting dilemma

On the one hand, if the fetus is to be considered not a person then no harm has been done, except the actual damage done to the mother in the process but that would be the same regardless if she was pregnant or not.

If it is considered a person then obviously abortion would have to be outlawed.

I really don't see any way to define this as murder, or manslaughter that leaves roe v. wade intact.

You can't merely side step it and say "it would be ok, if it were her choice, but not if she didn't want it" because that doesn't address the issue. That would be grounds for some sort of compensation for damage to property (like if he smashed her car against her will) but not grounds for manslaughter. To be manslaughter the fetus would have to be granted some rights as a human being, in which case she would be unable to abort even if she chose to (you can't take away the right to life of a human being even if you want to).

Don't see any quick or popular solution to this.

[Kerrytravelers]

81. Well said.

[Kadie]

94. There have been some really interesting responses to this thread.

I believe you are correct, there are not any quick or poplar solutions.

[foo_bar]

95. it might be considered homicide in neighboring MA, which hasn't abridged (voluntary) abortion rights

16. A "viable fetus" is a fetus "so far formed and developed that if then born it would be capable of living." Commonwealth v. Crawford, 430 Mass. 683, 689 (2000), quoting Torigian v. Watertown News Co., 352 Mass. 446, 448 (1967). It is not necessary that the Commonwealth prove that the defendant is aware that a fetus is viable to be guilty of homicide. See Commonwealth v. Crawford, 430 Mass. 683, 691 (2000). One who engages in wanton or reckless conduct and who thereby causes the death of a viable fetus is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. See id. at 689. See also Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 801 (1984) ("We look to the common law as to whether a viable fetus can be the victim of a homicide and conclude that it can."). (10)

http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=18893&sid=121

[Renew Deal]

53. That's terribly sad

And I understand why people would want the law changed.

[KittyWampus]

59. It was UNEQUIVOCALLY the woman's choice whether or not that was a child or not.

[bain_sidhe]

64. increase the penalties

We already have a system in place for increasing penalties based on aspects of a crime. A robbery using a gun has a higher penalty than a robbery without a gun. A murder during the commission of another felony has a higher penalty than a murder without that "aggravating factor." I remember a case from Texas in which a woman was sentenced to death for killing her husband because the prosecution argued that she'd done it for the insurance money. If not for that, they couldn't have given her the death penalty. (It was one of the cases in which GWBush refused to stay the execution, even though later evidence showed that she had no idea there was any insurance when she killed him. She was also a battered woman. Sad case, and why I remember the details so clearly.)

So, increase the penalties for a drunk driver who causes harm to fetuses, on top of harm to the woman. No need to address the "personhood" of the fetus at all, but still provide justice commensurate with the woman's horrible loss.

[Berry Cool]

84. Exactly. Increase the penalty without addressing the personhood issue.

Address the issue of how the individual committing the crime violated the right of the victim to bring her pregnancy to term, rather than whether the individual ended the life of a person/potential person/etc.

[KakistocracyHater]

67. litho-paedea stone-babies, also have fingers & toes, what about

the soul entering upon first breath, like the Old Testament story of the creation of man & woman? They have "rolled back" the point of personhood, of viability, & they prey on emotions to do it. Should they charge miscarriage moms with murder? Note that they play a zero sum game: woman=0, fetus=+1 especially boys, which I am sick of. Yes it's a tragedy, but I believe that if they were meant to be they will come back to her again, whether as her own children or grandchildren. Or surprisingly, the neighbor's children.


http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/zahra-aboutalib.html


http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/705EB565-D46E-4121-BA1A-8D7A1B39C743/ <---!!WARNING IMAGES!!!!!!

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/04/1819649.aspx?p=1

[LanternWaste]

83. Lacking the wit or wisdom of Solomon...

Lacking the wit or wisdom of Solomon, I suppose we merely dig our feet more intractably into our dogmatic positions, qualify our sorrows ("I'm sorry this happened to her, but...), and continue on.

[gleaner]

98. This is a tough question ......

I empathize with the mother's grief. But the state law is against her. Different states have different rules regarding the length of time that a mother must carry a fetus before they will prosecute a fetal death as a murder.

The other driver will be prosecuted, I hope for driving under the influence and will receive the stiffest penalty possible under the circumstances. It may not be enough for the mother, but I don't think anyone ever feels that there is enough justice for people who harm them or their loved ones. Still, I think this can be viewed from two directions.

One problem with defining at what point a fetus becomes a child capable of living outside the mother's body is that it impacts on a woman's right to choose abortion if she cannot or does not wish to bear a child. Sometimes anti abortion groups use arguments like this one to try to sway pro choice advocates and to try to end a woman's right to choose an abortion. I would hate to see that happen.

No matter how much I sympathize with this mother, I still think that the states need to define in their laws, the point at which a fetus is viable and able to survive outside of the mother's body. The right to choose has been attacked so much that I would hate to see it attacked again. In each instance where there is a woman carrying a child, more than one life is involved in any decision she makes, but we have to remember that the mother was here first, it is her body and her life is important. So is her right to choose.

This may seem off point from the original post, but it is one thing that came to mind as I was reading it and reading the thread, so please bear with me.

If the mother feels the law is unjust and cruel in her situation, she should approach her state legislators and tell them what she thinks and feels and ask for a change to the law. That is the same right that any of us has, and her best hope of making a change in a situation she does not find tolerable. I wish her well.

[crazyjoe]

100. I agree with the mother, this has nothing to do with abortion

Think about it, you or your wife is pregnant. The baby is in the womb, your preparing for the arrival, you've seen the ultrasounds.
And some asshole high on drugs KILLS your baby.
that asshole is guilty of man slaughter.

[Kerrytravelers]

107. While you, I and everyone else with common sense knows that this has nothing to do with abortion,

unfortunately, those wanting to force their personal anti-choice beliefs on everyone else will use this to chip away at Roe. If we lived in a mature society where people from both sides of the aisles could deal in nuance, I'd have absolutely no problem with such laws. In fact, I'd encourage it and be all for it. And, on an intellectual level, I completely agree with your post. I am just so suspicious of how such laws can be used by those who would use Ms. Blair's tragedy as a marketing tool.

[slackmaster]

104. California has it right on fetal murder

Killing a fetus is murder, unless it's done as an elective abortion in accordance with the law.

[proteus_lives]

108. +1

[Sheepshank]

111. absolutamundo!

[marshall]

109. Can't the drunken driver be charged with assault on the pregnant woman?

If the woman had lost an arm or her spleen or even her teeth the driver should be charged with assault. The fetuses were a part of the woman's body that was destroyed because of the driver's wreckless disregard. It seems like Vermont law would have something to charge this woman is that isn't related to calling it murder. The charge should focus on the assault of the woman and treat the fetuses as a part of her body.

[Dappleganger]

112. I think she should be allowed to say whatever she wants

about the babies she lost through no fault of her own, killed by the ignorant choices of another person on drugs. Of course she feels they were her babies, she probably talked to them since the time she knew they were there. Unfortunately, no matter what the law may be nothing will ever bring those babies, fetuses, or whatever you choose to call them back to her. As a mom I really feel for her and hope the best for her. At the least she ought to be able to file a significant civil lawsuit.