A question for lawyers, (not seeking legal advice)

[Perd Hapley]

I hope someone familiar with criminal law can advise on the following issue.  It has to do with standards of proof.

It has been proposed by one of our members that if abortions are treated as murders, women who miscarry will be charged with murder.  This is because women, allegedly, have much more control over miscarriage than is apparent.  Cannoneer asserts that women can intentionally reject their embryos when they are displeased with their partners or their situation in life, or when they are under stress.  He learned this from a book called Sperm Wars, but he claims it is common knowledge among obstetricians and gynecologists. 

So the question is how a prosecutor would prove this.  My guess is that anyone who tried would be laughed out of court.  Can we get some expert opinion? 

[Brad Johnson]

I imagine it be decided on proof of Intent.

Brad

[The Rabbi]

I'm not a lawyer.  But the basic premise fails the laugh test.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I gotta agree with Rabbi.  You don't have to be a lawyer to know this idea is absurd.

People die all the time.  It's only a crime if the death is the result of intentional action or extreme negligence.  The typical miscarriage is neither.

[Perd Hapley]

People die all the time.  It's only a crime if the death is the result of intentional action or extreme negligence. 

CAnnoneer is saying that it IS an intentional action.  I think the question, granting his science is correct, is whether this intent can be legally proven. 

I also find the idea preposterous, but he has brought it up a few times, so I thought we'd air it out. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yo CAnnoneer
Do you really believe that miscarriages are intentional and deliberate?  Do you deny that the typical miscarriage is an act of God or a random unfortunate event beyond the mother's reasonable control?

[Vodka7]

Looks like the state of Virginia is trying to hash out the same issue: House Advances Bill to Punish Forced Miscarriages

"Two bills that would make it a crime to force a miscarriage received preliminary approval in the House. Under one, a person other than the mother could be charged with involuntary manslaughter for causing a miscarriage. Under the other, a woman who causes her own miscarriage could be charged with a felony and face up to 10 years in prison. The legislation would not outlaw the morning-after pill."

Now, the bolded nonsense aside, it's my belief that there shouldn't be a legal difference between a woman who goes to a doctor to terminate her pregnancy, a woman who takes a pill to terminate her pregnancy, and a woman who has her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat to terminate her pregnancy.

Think I'm crazy for coming up with something like that last one, and that it could never happen in real life?  Oh how you underestimate the vile nature of some human beings.  (Unfortunately, the paper that originally posted the story, the Detroit Free Press, has taken it off its website.  The link above is mildly work safe, but the site itself is not.)

Note--I would never say that the typical miscarriage is intentional.  We are talking about a small, small figure, but given that they occur now, when abortion is legal and covered under medicaid, imagine how that number will rise when abortion is illegal.

[Perd Hapley]

Vodka, they're not hashing out the same issue at all.  CAnnoneer, if I understood him rightly, was saying that women could initiate a miscarriage without baseball bats or drugs or other outward means like starving themselves.

We are talking about a small, small figure, but given that they occur now, when abortion is legal and covered under medicaid, imagine how that number will rise when abortion is illegal.

Sure, the "in an alley with a coat hanger" argument.  Imagine how the number of infanticides would drop overall. 

[MechAg94]

Sounds like you need to PM Cannoneer and get more information.

Brad said it first.  Prove intent. 

[Perd Hapley]

I told him about this thread.  He went into great detail about this in a thread that I started a few months ago, but I erased the whole thing. 

[MechAg94]

Note--I would never say that the typical miscarriage is intentional.  We are talking about a small, small figure, but given that they occur now, when abortion is legal and covered under medicaid, imagine how that number will rise when abortion is illegal.

The number of people who do very stupid things for little or no reason is a small, small figure and may or may not be affected at all by changes in what is legal or illegal. 

[Vodka7]

Sure, the "in an alley with a coat hanger" argument.  Imagine how the number of infanticides would drop overall.

That wasn't my point at all.  You, me, and several of the other people in this thread have gone over our abortion viewpoints in other threads.  All I was saying with that line was that when abortion becomes illegal, DIY abortion should become illegal as well, because there is going to be more of it than there is now.  I think that if one type of abortion is illegal, every type should be.

Now, if you want to keep the discussion on the idea that women can reject embryos without taking any physical action against them, then I'm gonna bow out of this thread because that idea sets my BS meter off the chart.

[Brad Johnson]

The number of people who do very stupid things for little or no reason is a small, small figure

Want to bet? Come hang around MY job for a day and I'll cure you of that particular misconception.

Brad

[roo_ster]

The number of people who do very stupid things for little or no reason is a small, small figure

Want to bet? Come hang around MY job for a day and I'll cure you of that particular misconception.

Brad

Brad wins the prize for using the word "misconception" in a thread about miscarriage/abortion without referring to biological conception.

I don't doubt the human body has many & varied processes.  I am even willing to grant that if a study is done comparing happy soon-to-be mommies who want their babies to unhappy don't-wanna-be mommies, there may be a statistically significant difference in positive outcomes*.  Attributing those (possible) difference to unhappy mommy willing their baby to death** is likely not something that can be determined.  Proving it would be impossible.

FWIW, my above granting the possibility is truly a gimme, as the stats point to most unwanted babies being born by younger, healthier women who have better odds than the populaton of wanna-be mommies.***


* Positive=healthy, full-term baby birthed

** As opposed to other, quantifiable acts such as diet, missing prenatal checkups, boyfriends smashing their ho's in the belly with bats, etc.

***  If you've ever seen the desperation of a couple that waited a couple years too long to try to conceive, you ain't gonna soon forget it. 

[Perd Hapley]

  All I was saying with that line was that when abortion becomes illegal, DIY abortion should become illegal as well, because there is going to be more of it than there is now.  I think that if one type of abortion is illegal, every type should be.

Oh, very well then.  I agree.

Now, if you want to keep the discussion on the idea that women can reject embryos without taking any physical action against them, then I'm gonna bow out of this thread because that idea sets my BS meter off the chart.

Mine too.  That's why I wanted to expose the idea to the scrutiny of others, especially legal minds.