Posted on 10/31/2015 4:18:23 PM PDT by WTFOVR
A New York court recently ruled that a Long Island woman who killed her baby in a car accident cannot be convicted because her baby was not a person yet.
The Times Union reports Jennifer Jorgensen previously was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter for causing the death of her baby daughter in a car crash. She also was indicted for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and endangering the welfare of a child, according to the report.
Jorgensen was in her third trimester when the car accident occurred in May 2008. Her daughter was delivered by C-section after the head-on collision and died six days later, according to the report.
In October, the New York Court of Appeals reversed Jorgensen’s conviction, ruling that she was not guilty because she fatally injured her daughter before she was born.
The court ruling compared Jorgensen’s actions to self-induced abortion and called it an offense that is “no greater than a misdemeanor.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Yes, but the child was delivered by emergency c-section - so, the baby was in fact “born,” and living for six days. For some reprobate “judge” to declare same not a human being is beyond insanity.
perhaps, the judge is not human - that would make a lot more sense, since I am convinced, now more than ever, that most federal judges are mindless, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
The woman was driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Democrats are stupid. Therefore, gas them. It would save ever so much ammo.
If God is just - and He surely is, then Washington D.C. will disappear under a couple of 20+ MT hydrogen bombs - hopefully during the State of the Union Address. A 3-mile wide 1400 ft deep crater, where the WH once stood, would be a great incentive for Americans to wise up.
As a strictly legal matter, the judge did not declare that the six-day-old child was not a person. What the judge said was that “personhood” should be determined at the time of the criminal act (the drunk driving), not at the time of the effect (the child’s death). Because the child was not yet born—and thus, under New York law, not a “person”—there could be no manslaughter.
Of course, as a moral and ethical matter, the judge is a moron.
Excellent point.
The problem is that only 37 states have such statutes in place - NY is apparently not one of them.
But when the driver is under the influence of drugs an alcohol, like was said in this article, there are charges.
These evil people have to justify their infanticide and murder, and so we descend further and further into madness.
We’ve fallen off of the slippery slope.There isn't any "slippery slope". It is a staircase with each step deliberately taken.
The OP also says that the child was DELIVERED by emergency C-Section, and lived for 6 days. The baby was thus “born” ... Unless you are prepared to argue that delivered by ECS are not in fact “persons”?
Did you watch the accompanying video I linked in my commentary? All judges should be made to watch that video, with their eyelids forcibly kept open, non-stop for several hours ... Similar to the scene in Clockwork Orange.
There is no way that any intellect can deny that a human child in the womb is a person. Objective reality trumps ideological narcissism.
As far as the legal issue goes, right now, if you shoot and wound someone, and even after several years they die, attributed to that bullet, you can be charged with murder.
This being said, I don’t think the charge of second degree manslaughter would work, because at most this is a case of reckless indifference. This is still a serious felony, but is a more practical charge because it is against her for causing the accident resulting in death. The emphasis is on the accident, not on who was killed.
Which means that whether her fetus was a person at the time is less important *as an issue* than her causing the accident. By avoiding the personhood issue, they could have gotten a conviction that stuck.
Yet, the Left pushes the ‘settled science’ of ‘Global Warming’, but would spin on their eyebrows to go to the logic/scientific conclusion of “What goes out of a human female uterus ~9 months after conception?”
So, to these ‘brainiacs’, it’s the ‘dead cat experiment’: Until it’s born, there’s no way to determine if it’s alive or dead, and thus not a person??
Okay, back to problems with the courts decision and the 14th Amendment.
So, if you attack a pregnant woman, and her unborn child dies as a direct result of the attack, then that constitutes a “homicide” - but if she directs a doctor to inflict the same outcome, then that is just “abortion.” ...
The law is a moral farce on its face. It is contradictory. Immoral or unjust law is no law, and none who still possess free will - and choose to exercise that faculty - may be compelled to obey such madness.
The fact that so many Americans are willing to accept such insane duplicity, under the color of law, only proves that the majority of my countrymen are incorrigible reprobates, and thus undeserving of continued freedom. Your response is no different than an attempt to justify that Hitler’s SS officers were “just following orders.” The rationale is identical.
If we are so easily able to dismiss this absurdity, for reason of legalism (which is in fact the basis of your argument) then we deserve to be annihilated as a nation and a people. We no longer deserve the gift of life or freedom, and the entire nation should be wiped from the face of the Earth. We have become a sick joke, both as a people and a nation.
You sure about that?
Agreed.
When the judge is a democrat
And, to paraphrase, the Law is an ass.
From conception to death, DNA makes one unique (putting aside twins/etc.). It does not just ‘come into being’ during gestation, nor birth.
The death of the child are the result of her actions; no different than if the child was 5 in a car seat, a passenger as a teen/adult, etc.
These ‘legal eagles’ never use science (baby = person IS pretty ‘settled science’), they never use logic. They rely upon precedent and their person bias to steer judgements.
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.