I don't know why you direct this to me and I cannot find the article,
though I do remember it.

The reason I don't know why you direct the comment to me is because I
completely agree with what you say. Recklessness should NOT be a basis for
prosecuting someone for homicide over a miscarriage. That was my main
problem with this law. It is a terrible law for exactly that reason.

You are correct that many (both men and women) engage in lifestyles the are
not conducive to having children and raising families. These laws, like in
Utah, prevent people from living freely the lifestyle they choose and
people should decide for themselves their own lifestyle.

If it was not clear from my earlier comment, I am a lawyer and sometimes I
look at legal issues from the perspective of whether they are
constitutional. But, your point is a moral issue which I look at
differently.

Please continue to comment on TMV. You have a good point of view.

—————————————-
From: “Disqus” <>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:09 PM
To: ghealy@newdawnal.com
Subject: [themoderatevoice] Re: Utah Makes Miscarriage and Illegal Abortion
a Crime

FreyaUna wrote, in response to tidbits:

If a woman carries on a lifestyle that is not condusive to raising a child
and she purposely terminates a pregnancy because she uses drugs or alcohol
then isn't it better off that way? She's harming herself which is bad
enough. It's not homicide. Nature prevented a bad situation. Reckless
behavior… I don't get it. Woman endure a ton of bull crap. Help is needed
not more judgement!

Link to comment: http://disq.us/d3tcw

—–
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.

To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/notifications/

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Utah Makes Miscarriage and Illegal Abortion a Crime: I am too enraged right now to write any commentary on this. I… http://bit.ly/c8nNEX...

dr.e
tmv deputy managing editor

This is a case of two sides talking past each other. If you accept that the other side believes that the unborn child has rights, then it becomes obvious why they feel that they have the right to tell another woman what to do about abortions. The issue is whether the unborn child has the right to live (an endless debate I don't care to get involved in at the moment), not whether or not one person has the right to tell another person what to do.

20 years ago the thought of someone being charged with reckless homicide for not buckling up their children, or using a car seat, then getting into an accident would have been unthinkable. Not now, though. How would this be different?

That is always the danger with these types of laws, not what are current attitudes, but how these laws themselves are used to force behavior changes through ostracization. And that means they will need to make some examples out of people.

It is amazing that some are willing to write knee-jerk reactionary laws, when the case appears to be a “stand alone” event.

So watching what is going on in the Healthcare Debate: some want to make legal abortions an out-of pocket expense, buy those who need low cost health care insurance premiums more often than not do not have the cash to spend, so they are in a Catch-22 position….unwanted pregnancy – no money to obtain physician care – so they deliver an infant they can't afford and didn't want and if some have their way, no financial aid, which leaves them where? Drawing on public services that will be cut? Leaving their infants at the firestation, raising the number of unwanted adoptees.

It seems that some are so intent on a singular objective that they are failing to look down the road for the unintended consequences of what may happen once the “succeed in their singular objective”.

Admittedly, I am a Senior, with no dog in this fight, and I am for Choice, so I can never understand how a mostly male group has the right to try and legislate for a woman about how to manage her own body. Yeah, maybe some PL will be upset, but I can't see the reason why anyone, even another woman has the right to tell another woman what to do about abortions.

Besides the example cited, a woman returning to an abusive relationship, one can image prosecutions for drug use, drinking, smoking, etc., by those who want to proscribe fault to all actions that lead to harm.

What I meant though is that I realize there's some internal logical inconsistency in my belief that abortion involves killing of a human (legal) person but that it shouldn't IMO involve the same sort of punishments for all of the people involved as we would apply to murder cases. Again, the reason I've come to accept that inconsistency is the realization that the situations are the same in some ways but different in others, and I think the law should reflect both aspects.

I hope you're right, AD, but I'm expecting the worst.

This position can correctly be called inconsistent (as some have mentioned, if one person contracts with another for murder than he/she is also criminally liable) but it's my view that this is the most correct way to address and take into account the unique situation of pregnancy. There is an emotional aspect and a burden on women which should be weighed against the right to life of the fetus, and the law should recognize this. Punishment isn't the point, and doesn't have to be a legally proscribed and it can generally be assumed that the loss of a child (potential child if you will) carries and emotional toll which is its own punishment.

I've come to terms with the fact that there is no such thing as complete logical consistency in ANY position on abortion (on either the prochoice or prolife side- though certainly I consider some positions more consistent and logical than others.) That this is so is entirely logical because pregnancy and the fetal state are not analogous to any other condition of human life (a fetus can be argued to be either a person worthy of legal personhood or not, based on its physical characteristics which are certainly human and individual or based on its state of dependency and state of development which are distinct from that of born human beings.)

Secondly, my main problem with the bill is the “reckless” part. So regardless of whether or not women who seek illegal abortions deserve punishment or not, “reckless” is still the main problem with the bill. I don't want an investigator asking me what I had for dinner the night before if my wife has a miscarriage. Some would say that would never happen and that the law would be applied more judiciously. That's probably true, but I'm not willing to bet my freedom on it. If the only thing between me and jail time is a sympathetic prosecutor, I'm not comfortable with that.

Thirdly, if “reckless” were taken out, I think I'd be OK with the content of the bill in principle. However, I question the motive behind it. Like I said, I'm pretty sure it is already illegal to pay someone to commit a crime in your behalf, or even to ask/encourage them to without any money changing hands. If a particular case warrants prosecution of the woman having the illegal abortion, existing law seems to be sufficient. Therefore, the only reason for the bill that I can see is to send a message to pregnant women that they better watch out. Considering that very few women would ever consider getting an illegal abortion, I don't think that's a message that needs sending, and it only contributes to the devisiveness of the debate.

Fourthly, I think there are at least some case where the woman should not be prosecuted, or at least not with the full extent of the law, because it's easy to see how a woman could be taken advantage of in this situation. It is the person performing the illegal abortion that understands more fully the severity of the crime he or she is committing. The woman, faced with a very difficult circumstance, may not be in her right mind and may not have the knowledge to understand the legal implications. It's easy to see how someone could say “pay me $x and I'll make your problems go away”, and how that could be very convincing to some in that position. Therefore, the pregnant woman, in some cases, is a victim as well as an accessory to the crime. For that reason, I say we shouldn't paint with a broad brush. Each of these cases should be considered individually, and if prosecution is warranted, then see point #3.