http://www.propublica.org/article/s...ial&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1395163095 Here is the statue they are referring to: (1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases: (b) When done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; Where is the end with fetal harm cases? Where do the rights of the mother start trumping the rights of the fetus? If what Mississippi is saying is true, basically any time a mother takes an action with could result in death of the fetus even lacking intent she would seemingly be able to be prosecuted. Given the myriad causes of miscarriage, I would think that women should justifiably be worried about this possible precedent. NIH on Miscarriage So any woman who has done any of the above to risk her child could be prosecuted. I guess it is the logical extension of treating a fetus as a child, but there must be some point where we say that a fetus is not a human being or where we change the statue to reflect that it specifically does not apply to fetuses.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iq8gfaFqFpI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
As a man, I feel this should be left for women to decide. Therfore concerning this thread, I'm going to make like a fetus... Spoiler and head out
Yeah, I really flubbed that, didn't I. Thanks for the correction. How do you feel about treating fetuses as people for the purposes of this law?
We already draw that line with child endangerment/abuse standards. There's no getting around a need to draw such lines if you think the unborn are entitled to any protection. No, you would have to prove a willful intent to harm. I agree though, if a doctor can legally dismember a child in the womb, why is a woman at fault for exposing her unborn child to cocaine? In both cases the mother has intent to harm the child, yet the former is perfectly legal, while the latter is not? Why must there be such a point?
Since I think we should generally treat fetuses as people, I don't have a problem with it in this context. There is nothing magical about exiting the womb that makes me think that is when a person should be protected.
debated and decided in a democratic fashion not that it's not changeable in the same system, but we count legal precedent as strong statement of immutability
I have a question for those who think fetus' are people. Would you extend citizenship to fetuses? Following on that should fetuses be counted in census and be used for the apportionment of legislators?
You don't need premeditation in Mississippi? I thought that was what distinguished murder from manslaughter. Moot issues. The important one is they're lives and should be protected.
What's so funny about it? If they are people then under the equal protection they should be counted as such.
How about this...if you had a guest come stay at your house, do you make more food, or hope that food you regularly have with your family will be enough to sustain everyone... My point is very simple: The human body physiologically adapts to a "person" by increasing the volume of blood within the body to accommodate for that "person." The mother is known to increase her nutritional intake...not because she usually eats that much, but that she is eating for an extra mouth to feed... This mother used an illicit substance that is illegal and known to cause birth defects and damage to a growing fetus. Her addictive actions directly caused harm to the child...she deserves to be punished...perhaps not as extreme as this punishment, but she shouldn't have a the privilege of having another child.
Sure, but I imagine it would be a negligible number. You would just count the fetus as a child/dependent on the form. Not a big deal. You act as if this is some difficult ethical conundrum, collecting census data vs. the protection of human life.
Actually not quite. As you may know citizenship confers many rights and protection other than just voting. I doubt anyone would consider stripping citizenship rights from minors. Further equal protection also applies to children and is what did away with the 3/5's compromise that kept slaves from having personhood. So while certain rights are limited from minors they are still considered people and subject to equal protection. Voting is limited not because children are not considered people but because it is considered that they don't have the maturity to vote. I would agree with the argument that fetuses couldn't vote but equal protection is a a critical constitutional concept to personhood.
