This Fox News headline struck me as possibly the latest effort to establish personhood for a fetus: “Woman Accused of Killing Mom, Fetus Pleads Insanity.” Once you open up the story from the main page, it does not improve much with Wisconsin Woman Accused of Killing Mom and Fetus Pleads Insanity.
This headline suggests that women is accused of killing a woman but the fetus is trying to avoid culpability entirely.
If I were the fetal defense attorney, I would argue a prenatal irresistible impulse defense but, as noted in earlier columns, the states have cut back on the defense as a whole. What should be clear is that, even under the more restrictive modern tests, a fetus could not distinguish between right and wrong. Yet, the scourge of insane fetuses could play badly with a jury. They are already known to live off their mothers, refused to move out, and decline gainful employment. Yet, this could be simply laying the groundwork for the next Fox series “When Fetuses Attack.”
Fox might want to redo the headline. The case is clearly disturbing enough without adding a fetal insanity angle.
Stephanie, i have heard your argument before. I have no problem at all with your personal beliefs and would not presume to tell you how to believe. However, if you try to impose your personal values or beliefs on another adult female or her family, then we part ways. Just as you are free to act on your own behalf and that of your pregnancy, you do not need to impose those beliefs on another who might believe quite differently, have different needs and wishes. Somebody else’s womb is not yours. You only have one. You don’t need to dictate to those of strangers.
Hey, y’all who are pro-choice and believe that the pro-life side is really patriarchal…there are women who are pro-life, too.
The right way to argue for whatever you believe in is not to bash the other side. I’ve found it’s really important to remember that, no matter what you speak of, each side has some sort of merit.
Also, not understanding the argument that a fetus is a person – “if it can’t survive on its own it’s a parasite” – there are many people with disabilities and illnesses or even just old age that can’t survive on their own. Maybe you believe differently, but I don’t think that it should be permissible by law to kill them.
Stephanie,
I’m well aware that many women feel they don’t have the right to make a choice in their lives. I respect their right to believe as they choose. However, I don’t condone the fact that they show their disrespect for others views by trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. If you won’t respect my beliefs why should I respect yours.
“I have never understood the argument that a fetus is a person.”
“As long as it cannot survive on its own it, no matter how distatseful the word is, a parasite and does not deserve the protection of law.”
Well, I’m 50, and I can’t survive on my own. Most 1-9 year olds can not survive on their own.
You know what I meant, You, unless you are disabled such as Hawking, etc (btw my father died of ALS so I know when someone is in need of care,) you can take care of yourself, i.e. breathe, eat, etc. A fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, you can, even if you need the help of another person or medical technology. No need to respond to the 1-9 year old comment.
Steven Hawking can’t survive on his own, but I admit he can get onto the Simpson’s and Star Trek.
Therefore those with severe disabilities you equate with not being outside of the womb? Your argument would imply that you believe all disabled should be done away with because of their need for support. It is truly apples and oranges; a specious argument, at best.
A preemie isn’t a preemie below 37 weeks of age, so I guess you would agree 38 weeks of age fetuses aren’t parasites.
If it can survive outside of the womb. Repeating my argument won’t make you accept it since you disagree with me. I am not a republican so I will not continue to write the same sentence again and again hoping that that will make you come to agree with it.
Preemies at 24 weeks are regularly birthed and survive.
So far I see nothing magical about the spreading of your legs that makes birth such a demarcation on what is a parasite and what is not.
“spreading your legs”, a term that makes you seem very ugly in your positions, has nothing to do with whether a fetus is called a human being, a potential person, or parasitic (see the definition of parasite,m it fits foir fetus.)
Society and the law give you the ability to abort within the first trimester (first two?), I see no purpose or use of the “fetus is a parasite” object except to twist common sense and decency.
It is a term of correctness.
But if you tell me why your spreading your legs for birth is so magical in determining when a parasite becomes a human worthy of protection maybe that would shed some light on it.
See above.
“Once it can survive outside the womb then it should be protected (but that does not mean that trimester abortion sould be illegal sincew it is rarely done for non medical reasons.)””
Huh? By your argument, the record of premature births, yo, indicate that very young (21-24 week old) fetuses are not parasites and thus deserviing of protection. But now you just seem to want have your cake and eat it.
I added third trimester to abort (if you will) the issue since it would be a nonsequitor. And no, read my sentence – if for medical reasons, that is not related to viability or not.
…. Third trimester abortions should be illegal. But the same people also agree that if medically necessary, abortions should be legal.
Yes. And? They are not mutually exclusive.
When I read Malish above and others state so emphatically that it’s all about sexual control of women and the patriarchy, it strikes me that 86% of the US being against third trimester abortion indicates it has nothing to do with sexual control of women or some mythical patriarchy conspiracy
86% means nothing without context, figures lie, liars figure.
If reincarnation of a particular person into the same particular person is an actual fact, might not multiple life sentences make flawless sense?
Meanwhile, discrete use of commas might allow that headline to be intelligible.
Malisha, How ’bout the fetuses who grow up to own corporations are people.
Here’s one: If the right wing were allowed to choose only ONE Of these two, which would they choose:
EITHER
fetuses (“feta”) are persons
OR…………………..
Corporatios are persons.
?? but not both.
“The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.” Learn more at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/about-personhood.html
“I don’t imagine that a bunch of patriarchs get together and ‘conspire’ to make it dangerous for women to have babies.”
Or, maybe so —
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/the-men-behind-the-war-on_n_1069406.html
Let me get back into this on one point: I don’t imagine that a bunch of patriarchs get together and “conspire” to make it dangerous for women to have babies. Most of the people who are taking part in 99% of human life in our society are doing things they don’t “conspire” to do and things that have unintended consequences they don’t even understand. But I do firmly believe that, that said, there are huge social and even huge criminal conspiracies going on nearly uintentionally and certainly they have their origins in human nature NOT because everybody wants to be evil and hurt mothers, but because most of us just can’t manage every aspect of our lives and emotions in a way to make us better than we are, myself included. I do feel that when you refer to someone “spreading [your] legs to give birth” and so forth, that these images and even these underSTANDings of what we do with our lives have been permeated, for years and years and years and years, with forces beyond our control. Was there a time when giving birth was sacred and therefore being a woman of child bearing years was awesome and etc. etc.? Probably. Possibly. I haven’t been born or raised in those times.
I had a baby once; he’s 34 now, my best friend, my strongest ally. But he and I went through Hell and in many ways are still going through Hell because of the terrible disrespect to mothers AND CHILDREN that our culture is steeped in. I think it’s far enough along for us to try to see mothers as people, we’re not at fetuses yet, that’s my general belief.
Thanks for your opinions. I really appreciate the discussions.
Anon,
As I’ve looked back on comments you’ve made about me on other threads,
I rarely have seen anything to indicate that you have respect for my writings, or my opinions. That is your right and I will agree that there was nothing nasty or discourteous about your opinions. However, it is hard for me to conclude from those comments that you repect me, which is fine since there is much we disagree about. One instance is that you have little comprehension of my sly, dry humor.
Fine Mike, in the future I will offer you no respect. That’s surely a better way to hold a discussion.
But offering you respect makes me disingenuous in my methodology? This does scan as English, but not boy I have no idea what that means.
Perhaps once again it means that if anyone disagrees with Mike they are cast into the fires of Mordor.
Anyway, I did disagree with you, and offered up some reasons and some questions which, disrespectfully, you ignored.
“I have never understood the argument that a fetus is a person.”
“As long as it cannot survive on its own it, no matter how distatseful the word is, a parasite and does not deserve the protection of law.”
Well, I’m 50, and I can’t survive on my own. Most 1-9 year olds can not survive on their own.
Steven Hawking can’t survive on his own, but I admit he can get onto the Simpson’s and Star Trek.
A preemie isn’t a preemie below 37 weeks of age, so I guess you would agree 38 weeks of age fetuses aren’t parasites.
Preemies at 24 weeks are regularly birthed and survive.
So far I see nothing magical about the spreading of your legs that makes birth such a demarcation on what is a parasite and what is not.
Society and the law give you the ability to abort within the first trimester (first two?), I see no purpose or use of the “fetus is a parasite” object except to twist common sense and decency.
But if you tell me why your spreading your legs for birth is so magical in determining when a parasite becomes a human worthy of protection maybe that would shed some light on it.
“Once it can survive outside the womb then it should be protected (but that does not mean that trimester abortion sould be illegal sincew it is rarely done for non medical reasons.)””
Huh? By your argument, the record of premature births, yo, indicate that very young (21-24 week old) fetuses are not parasites and thus deserviing of protection. But now you just seem to want have your cake and eat it.
According to the wiki, the common sense of the US is that people overwhelmingly disagree with you. Third trimester abortions should be illegal. But the same people also agree that if medically necessary, abortions should be legal.
When I read Malish above and others state so emphatically that it’s all about sexual control of women and the patriarchy, it strikes me that 86% of the US being against third trimester abortion indicates it has nothing to do with sexual control of women or some mythical patriarchy conspiracy theory.
“Anon,
When someone uses “with respect to you”, watch out because a “zinger” is on the way. However, what really is served by having someone sentenced to two life sentences without parole? If someone is in prison for life, what pressing need is served for society by a second sentence? My suggestion meets Occam’s Razor, or can you provide another benefit gained by anyone but the anti-abortion, anti-woman movement?”
Yeah, well, I have no clue what your problem is Mike, since you fail to point what my zinger is. I think when I wrote “with respect to you” what I meant was, “I think you’re wrong but I respect your position and I respect you.”
If person X kills two people M, and N, what is the point of charging that person with a double homicide?
Nowhere in the linked article do I see anything suggesting the sentence is life without parole. “Life” without the “without parole” clause does not mean “life without parole” and even so, “life without parole” does not mean “LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE” as rational people might define it.
Sometimes life without parole means parole is possible (e.g. “However, if an inmate is serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole, the Maryland Parole Commission cannot grant parole, but can only recommend parole, with the parole decision made by the Governor.”)
http://professorwarnken.com/2010/05/31/life-does-not-mean-life-without-parole/
And sometimes juries are informed of the charge (murder, double murder) but not the lack of the possibility of parole. I’ve heard of many cases where juries have said if they would not have voted a death penalty charge if they knew another possible charge was life without parole.
What is the point of heaping lots of seemingly redundant charges on? Beats me exactly, but it’s done it plenty of cases, I see no reason not to do so when one of the victims is a fetus the mother clearly wanted to bring to term.
(Hey, If you believe Yahoo, “The longest jail sentence passed was in the United States – 10,000 years for a triple murder. Dudley Wayne Kyzer was jailed for 10,000 years by a court in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in 1981 for murdering his wife. He was then sentenced to two life terms for murdering his mother-in-law and a college student.”)
Personally, I think it’s debatable that the college student was a human being since he was almost certainly not employed and paying his fair share of taxes. As a recipient of taxes, I would claim that college student as a potential human life, but mainly a parasite.
And if he was a liberal arts major, then yeah, no way was he going to be anything other than a parasite with possibilities of barista.
What “zinger” meant in context anon was you set out tio attack my position, yet by adding the “respect” you were only being disingenuous in your methodology. In Congress it’s common coin. As far as your critique goes I definitely believe she will be charged with felony murder, which would call for that sentence if convicted. The fetus charge is merely an anti-abortion tactic, disagree if you will.
“If I were the fetal defense attorney . . .”
A new specialty in the JD program at Oral Roberts University?
I have never understood the argument that a fetus is a person. As long as it cannot survive on its own it, no matter how distatseful the word is, a parasite and does not deserve the protection of law. Once it can survive outside the womb then it should be protected (but that does not mean that trimester abortion sould be illegal sincew it is rarely done for non medical reasons.)
Maybe the fetal insanity is because she acted like a baby, taking what she wanted without having any other care?
Anon,
When someone uses “with respect to you”, watch out because a “zinger” is on the way. However, what really is served by having someone sentenced to two life sentences without parole? If someone is in prison for life, what pressing need is served for society by a second sentence? My suggestion meets Occam’s Razor, or can you provide another benefit gained by anyone but the anti-abortion, anti-woman movement?
Mike,
“The other thought I have is that if for the murder of the mother this woman gets life without parole, what is served in giving her a double life conviction, other that making a point about fetal life.”
My thoughts are that the murder of a mother and her fetus that the mother fully intended to give birth to clearly should be treated as the murder of two human, just as much as any double murderer would be charged with two murders.
And that it doesn’t reflect poorly on either the pro-choice or pro-life movements that weak arguments such as yours Mike have to be made in order to protect what you reasonably feel is a greater good, what it reflects poorly on, is the idiocy and stupidity and rigidity of our lawyer class and our courtrooms.
Lawyers and law professors should be ashamed at themselves that your argument has to be made.
It’s basically, with respect to you, a disingenuous and bogus argument, and yet it has to be made because our courts fail us.
It should be completely reasonable to be pro-choice and still be able to think the homicide of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby is a double murder. You should be able to make this claim without somehow giving credence at other times to the argument that a planned abortion by a medical professional is murder.
I suppose it can’t get any crazier or can it…..
OK, Mike, Rafflaw, I think the “pro-life” movement is about more than clamping down on women’s right to privacy or their right to be independent sexual beings. I think it’s the ultimate in patriarchal control. A woman is, under many of the upcoming (and long-time-developing) legal analyses, actually PREGNANT WITH SOMEONE ELSE’S CHILD. If you can institute possession of the child (even before birth) you have the women under control but that’s not the whole story: You have established the right to control the CHILDREN, so you own the future generation. The woman becomes the factory that produces YOUR HUMAN RESOURCES.
The fact that this is enmeshed with conservative religious politics supports this theory.
Another thing: There is no individualized effective response to this; to escape the permanent effects of this problem a woman must simply NOT HAVE CHILDREN.
As it is now, there have even been court cases where pregnant women whose fetuses “belonged” to men who went to court for early control have been subjected to injunctions, at the putative fathers’ requests, that take away their basic rights, even the right to move freely through the United States of America and/or to relocate.
If you want to talk about equality, you have to talk about non-mother women being equal to men, not WOMEN per se being equal to men.
Hilarious headline!
Mike S., you are correct that the pro-life movement is all about clamping down on women and their right to privacy.
If she did as she alleged then i think she is crazy, if not legally so. To obtain a child by murdering its’ mother, sort of sets the parental bonding arrangement off in the wrong direction so to speak. She would have to be insane to find some rationale for doing this. The other thought I have is that if for the murder of the mother this woman gets life without parole, what is served in giving her a double life conviction, other that making a point about fetal life. I have believed since Roe v. Wade that the anti-abortion movement is more about punishing women’s sexuality, than about caring for life or their God’s strictures.