It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman Charged With First Degree Murder Of Fetus In California

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Can you imagine just how #ed up that pregnant woman's hormonal moods swings must have been, with all that meth coursing through her blood stream!




posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

How did she know it would kill the fetus? I mean, didnt she have a few kids while she was using the crap? Those experiences should have told her that the crap would screw the babies up, but if her intent was to kill the fetus, (which I believe is a necessary component of 1st degree murder), her experience would tell her that her drug use probably wouldn't have a good chance of succeeding.


Oh, I don’t think they would get First Degree Murder. It’s CA so these cases usually get dismissed. Someone earlier pointed out that Kings County is very conservative so ... who knows.

I think the most they would bet is involuntary manslaughter.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Besides that, aren’t you one of those folks that believe it’s okay to kill the unborn baby if you think the circumstances warrant?

So are you. You did post this earlier in the thread:


originally posted by: Gryphon66
For me? Were I able to be pregnant, my choice would be to have the baby if I could unless it was cripplingly deformed.

If I had to choose between my spouse and a baby, I’d choose my spouse every time.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Moot point I guess as neither I nor my spouse can get pregnant eh?

You did point out a semantically poor argument on my part; thanks Redneck!

edit on 8-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Good Job! Please have a virtual cookie.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I cant...
The closest I've come to using the crap is probably your typical over the counter cold meds..
And, did they determine how much meth was in her system?
I am just assuming that the article is accurate and her illegal drug use was the cause of the miscarry. But, theres women who've had these same kinds of charges against them who may have only had a history of drug usage and swear they weren't using during the pregnancy.

Regardless of how you want to define the fetus, I dont believe they could get a first degree murder charge to stick unless they can prove she was intending to kill the fetus when she took the drugs.
edit on 8-11-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Apparently the mother decided her lump of cells was a human life....


It wasn't a lump of cells.



Becker was about eight and a half months pregnant when she experienced a stillbirth


Oddly enough there are states where that doesn't matter..


I am unaware of any unless the Mother is in imminent danger? I do believe any woman who carried her child for that many months is not just looking to get rid of it and it would be a painful loss.

I have been reading a lot of the modern day human (child) sacrifice and it is a concern when any cell cluster has grown to be an established baby. It could well be that it is used the same way by some as sacrifice. Many laugh at these things but if they would simply do some study on it they would realize it is not a joke.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You didn't ask me. You have in the past and I answered. It's a person, just like any other person, there are circumstances when killing them is warranted and justified. One such case would be when the mother's life is in danger.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

You didn't ask me. You have in the past and I answered. It's a person, just like any other person, there are circumstances when killing them is warranted and justified. One such case would be when the mother's life is in danger.


I asked you up above, but, no worries. Things get lost in the shuffle.

Like forgetting that I have asked and had you answer in previous discussions. Sorry to pester.

Thanks for your answer, again. Very well phrased.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry I missed it! And i don't expect you to remember all the crap I post



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, but we’ve had this discussion a few times.

I’d accuse myself of badgering the witness, LOL.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


It's a fetus, not a person, if you believe that, no murder occurred.

That's where the real illogic comes in.

If it is a child once it exits the mother, then it is illogical to believe it is not a child the second before it exits the mother. To believe that requires something that is akin to a belief in magic... life would have been created out of thin air. Further, it it is a child a second before it exits the mother, is it also still a child two seconds prior to the exit? Three? A minute? An hour? We can extrapolate that far, far back as far as we want and still there has to be this belief that somehow life popped into existence from nothing.

Science says different. Science says that it is alive and human not from the moment of conception, but even before that. The ovum is alive and a human cell. The sperm is alive and a human cell. Life never starts because it never ends. Similarly, the ovum and the sperm are both human, as is the zygote, the embryo, the fetus. Any other argument is simply ignorance.

The true issue is that there are two competing interests here: the life of a child (one can add the qualifier "potential" before that and still be accurate) and the life of the mother. Which controls? I say the one with the greater interest. In all cases, an abortion is the ending of a human life, but there are cases where that life threatens the life of the mother. In such cases, and only in such cases, the mother holds the advantage, as she has more of a life at stake than the child. Inconvenience, however, should never be a cause to end a life.

The other side of this argument is that severe inconvenience, such as that which would accompany an unwanted birth to, say, a single mother for example, can and will according to history lead to women performing dangerous procedures on themselves. Women during pregnancy are subject to bouts of irrational thinking brought on by hormonal changes in their bodies. Any such attempt will likely either kill or seriously maim both the child and the mother, which is certainly a situation to be avoided. Thus, outlawing abortion outright, while morally the correct thing to do in the short term, would have devastating effects on society in the longer term.

That is why I have no issue with first-trimester abortions. The child may be human and alive, but does it have cognizant thought? Obviously an unfertilized ovum and a sperm have no conscious thought that we can understand as such, so to place a single point in time as the moment the child is conscious is no less a belief in magic than believing there is a particular point in time it achieves life. It is only logical to presume that consciousness occurs as the nervous system develops over a range of time; indeed, a newborn child does not exhibit the level of consciousness of an adult.

The issue to me comes down to the death of consciousness, and the best method of determining consciousness is the question of "can it feel pain?" Obviously a late trimester child can feel pain, but it is highly unlikely that a first-trimester child can. In between, the reasonable assumption is that the earlier an abortion occurs, the better.

There have been arguments raised about third trimester abortions should be legal in cases of rape and incest. Why? Did the mother forget the conception until 9 months later? I hardly think so. Those cases should be easy: have the abortion within two weeks of learning one is pregnant. That may allow for some second trimester abortions, but at least the act is performed with as little pain to the child as is possible.

There have also been statements about "partial birth abortions" being illegal; this is true, but with a caveat. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term; it is a political term for "dilation and extraction," where the child is removed through the cervix after dilation is induced... essentially, the child is removed as though it were being born and killed in transit. that is not exactly what the law says is illegal. According to US Code, it is illegal to perform any operation which is expected or likely to result in death to the child before one of two things happen: the child's head is entirely outside the mother, or in the case of a breach the child's navel is outside of the mother. The child may legally be killed by any method desired before that point. There are organizations which will undertake this procedure.

The real problem with this entire issue, though, is the Roe v. Wade decision. There are those who apparently, based on their continuous cheerleading for anything that will further abortion, hate children. I suspect many of those people actually hate men in general; killing a man's child is certainly an act worthy of being classified as revenge. They claim that it is "their body" but ignore the fact that the child is not their property, as well as ignore the fact that there are legal restrictions on all people that prohibit certain thing done to or with their bodies. They cling to Roe v. Wade and have used it to promote their illogical positions, even going so far as to claim that men should be silenced.
I believe they want to sincerely believe that men do not care for children the way they do... which is an outright lie, evidenced by the fact it is they who wish to destroy unborn children.

For that reason, and because of their own abuse of it, Roe v. Wade must be overturned.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


...semantically poor...

I would argue hypocritical.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Roe v. Wade, since many seem ignorant of the actual decision, basically restricted any State’s laws regarding abortion availability in light of the Fourteenth Amendment and legal precedent. It created three categories of development for a fetus and in general stated that during the first three months of pregnancy there could be no statutes restricting access to abortion procedures, during the next three months, it would be up to the States’ determination of compelling need, and in the last trimester, the States could restrict any abortion not deemed medically necessary (like to save the mother’s life or end the life of a terminally damaged fetus.)

Roe v. Wade

Roe was further clarified by later cases (Casey) which discarded the trimester schema and established fetal viability as the measure restricting the State’s legislative limitations.

There is no more reasoned fair way to preserve and balance both the rights of women and the rights of prenatal care.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Off-topic post deleted by author.
edit on 8-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: scolai
a reply to: Bluntone22

This.

Here in clown world, things are not as they seem. Men are women. Babies aren’t alive. Successful people are oppressed. Poor people are privileged. Racism is bad, unless it’s anti-white. Then it’s not racism, it’s fighting against oppression. War is bad, until we pull out of it. Then, war is good and we should get back into it. Speech is violence. Drugs are good. Police are bad. Obesity is healthy. Criminals are saints and martyrs. The constitution is a worthless relic of slavery, until it fits an agenda. Then, it’s the most important document of all time and needs to be fiercely defended.

Here in clown world, we don’t have to worry about silly little things like logic and reason. No, we have feelings to trump all of those trivial matters.

This is why abortions are legal and killing a baby in the womb is first degree murder.


That ^^^^^^^


I don't know about a 1st degree murder charge, but a woman who keeps having babies over and over again while continuing to do meth needs to be controlled in some fashion. In many ways the child who died was probably the lucky one as I can only imagine what the life will be like for those that lived, even though she tried to kill them too.

I suppose I'd call it negligent homicide.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why?? Most of the thread is off topic.
It's not about abortion, or roe v. Wade.
It's about pregnant women being charged with murder when their actions cause a miscarriage.
Actions like drug usage, prescription drugs included in some cases, not wearing your seat belt, or losing you balance and falling down a flight of stairs..
Many times the action really cant be proven to have caused the miscarriage.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The OP's topic regards the legal status of a late-gestation fetus.

All the rest is best described as business as usual.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Would it matter? If you slipped and fell down a flight of stairs and ended up knocking an old lady off balance on the way down and ahe happened to die, would you get slapped with murder charges?



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

A bit off-topic, but as only females can become pregnant how do you justify the degree of government interference as suggested by what ... sterilization?

Are there just no practical limits on the need for the state to dominate and subjugate women?

Why not just make females property and be done with it???

It's obscene in any terms of individual rights
edit on 8-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Involuntary manslaughter I believe.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join