Skip to comments.
Justices reject stillborn prosecution case
CNN ^
| 6 October 2003
Posted on 10/06/2003 11:14:50 AM PDT by Lorianne
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON (AP) --The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider the case of a woman sentenced to 12 years in prison for murder after drugs were found in the system of her stillborn daughter.
Regina McKnight was convicted under South Carolina's homicide by child abuse law for the 1999 death. Her lawyers say she is the first woman convicted of homicide for suffering a stillbirth.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; drugs; unbornrights
1
posted on
10/06/2003 11:14:50 AM PDT
by
Lorianne
To: Lorianne
I cannot 'connect the dots' for rational discussion! In Illinois a judge exonerates a mother who birthed an alive child but killed that living child while it was still connected to the placenta via the umbilicus, yet this woman is convicted of killing an alive unborn child with durg use. This nation has lost its 'moral way', bouncing around between the irrational positions required to continue defending the heinous slaughter of abortion on demand. The disconnect is growing more astonishing with every new case presented for the review of Justice and law!
2
posted on
10/06/2003 11:21:15 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: All
|
There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3
posted on
10/06/2003 11:22:07 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Lorianne
Too bad she didn't opt for LEGAL MURDER! Had she just gone to the clinic and paid them to kill the baby, she wouldn't have had this problem.
4
posted on
10/06/2003 11:22:30 AM PDT
by
I'm ALL Right!
(He is no fool who would give what he cannot keep to gain what he can never lose. - Jim Elliot)
To: Lorianne
Amazing. Can anyone predict what would have happened if she was going to have a partial-birth abortion, but the child was stillborn? Would this have been OK? If so, couldn't she simply say she changed her mind and wanted an abortion in order to avoid criminal charges?
Given this case, along with other recent cases in the news, it seems the entire case of whether or not a "fetus" is a human or not is determined by the arbitrary opinion of the mother, not any scientific evidence.
To: Lorianne
If the state's argument is a valid one then abortion is ILLEGAL.
6
posted on
10/06/2003 11:47:11 AM PDT
by
Jaded
(But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Mat. 5:44)
To: MHGinTN
There is no rational discussion. I'm assuming the Illinois woman was found innocent because it was her "choice". Notice that the pro-choice argument can no longer depend on the supposed difficulty of defining when life begins. These two cases illustrate this. One died prior to birth, and she's guilty. Petersen died prior to birth, and the father is being charged. In the Illinois case, the child dies after birth, and she's innocent. Like I said above, the only argument they've got left is the arbitrary decision of the mother to determine whether or not life has begun.
To: BMiles2112
Doesn't this decision deny that poor woman the choice to control what drugs she puts in her body?
To: Lorianne
Isn't this just an abortion? Or can only doctors kill kids?
To: MHGinTN
I cannot 'connect the dots' for rational discussion! In Illinois a judge exonerates a mother who birthed an alive child but killed that living child while it was still connected to the placenta via the umbilicus, yet this woman is convicted of killing an alive unborn child with durg use. This nation has lost its 'moral way'....... In your example, "the nation" has not lost it's moral way..........An Illinois judge with a very sick mind has lost his moral way.
10
posted on
10/06/2003 1:36:33 PM PDT
by
Polybius
To: Polybius
The judge was a she, and she set aside two previous rulings that treated the murder as murder.
11
posted on
10/06/2003 1:48:22 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: ModelBreaker
Doesn't this decision deny that poor woman the choice to control what drugs she puts in her body?
I would say so. It destroys that other argument you hear from the pro-choicers, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body." Women cannot legally do crack, heroine, guys in exchange for money, etc. regardless of whether or not they are pregnant.
To: Lorianne; .30Carbine
13
posted on
10/07/2003 9:14:12 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Regime change in the courts. - Impeach activist judges!)
To: <1/1,000,000th%
Isn't this just an abortion? Or can only doctors kill kids? She didn't intend to kill her child her mind was clouded by the sickness of addiction. Doctors know exactly what they are doing and why. I guess that's what makes the difference between murder and abortion. ??? Plus she didn't get paid to do it. Doctor's Union breaker. Doubleplus bad.
14
posted on
10/07/2003 9:21:34 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Regime change in the courts. - Impeach activist judges!)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson