Woman Charged With Murdering Newborn

Originally posted by normbenign
In the cited case, it appears the difference was a few seconds, and/or a trip to a clinic that did partial birth abortions.

Glad for your total clarity on the matter.

Stunningly wrong.

Intellectual laziness seems to be a central tenet of "modern" right wingers.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
If that's the case, then I'm glad you corrected me.

Glad to help.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You and norm are grossly misinformed on the laws regarding abortion. Viable fetuses cannot be aborted in ANY State absent exceptional circumstances i.e. they are necessary to save the woman's life.

Viability is generally considered third trimester, although that might vary due to jurisdiction.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stunningly wrong.

Intellectual laziness seems to be a central tenet of "modern" right wingers.

Declaration of wrongness is stunningly lazy, if a rational and factual explanation can be given and isn't.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/PBAbortion.htm

This article seems to indicate that legal barriers to partial birth abortions have all been defeated, and that these most often occur in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
What's the problem? She has rights. It was her right to choose to kill her baby.

Mother Charged with Murdering Newborn; Claims Stabbing was Accidental

A newborn is dead after a young mother tried to cut the umbilical cord.

Authorities in Athens, Georgia say the mother told detectives she accidentally cut the infant's throat while she was tryi ...[text shortened]... headlines/Mother-Charged-with-Murdering-Newborn-Claims-Stabbing-was-Accidental-179730421.html

If the pregnancy had been the result of rape, would it then have been no problem for you if the woman had decided to murder her born child?

Originally posted by normbenign
Declaration of wrongness is stunningly lazy, if a rational and factual explanation can be given and isn't.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/PBAbortion.htm

This article seems to indicate that legal barriers to partial birth abortions have all been defeated, and that these most often occur in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

Like I said: lazy. You may add careless and ignorant.

That article is clearly out of date; in its body, it discusses the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Act is scheduled to be decided by the SCOTUS. Thus, it must have been written in early 2007 at the latest.

If you scroll down the page, you'll find a link to an article regarding that SCOTUS case: Gonzales v. Carhart. The majority by Kennedy:

As per Roe v. Wade, women have the right to an abortion at any point of previability.
The Partial Birth Abortion Act would be unconstitutional "if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before a fetus attains viability."
The Partial Birth Abortion Act does not meet that standard.


Therefore, the Partial Birth Abortion Act is constitutional.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/gz_v_carhart.htm

(Emphasis added)


The article also states: Elective abortions performed during the third trimester, whether they took place by intact D&X or not, were already illegal before the bill was signed and were not affected by this legislation.

Originally posted by Thomaster
Oh, I heard it was only legal under strict circumstances, but I may be misinformed.

Yes, you must have a pulse and be with child......but not meeting this criterea will not always stop them.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
If the pregnancy had been the result of rape, would it then have been no problem for you if the woman had decided to murder her born child?

Only if she had a coat hanger and did it in a dark alley and her daddy was the father.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like I said: lazy. You may add careless and ignorant.

That article is clearly out of date; in its body, it discusses the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Act is scheduled to be decided by the SCOTUS. Thus, it must have been written in early 2007 at the latest.

If you scroll down the page, you'll find a link to an arti ...[text shortened]... t, were already illegal before the bill was signed and were not affected by this legislation.

That's better, not so stunningly lazy, and informative, but still a bit bombastic.

So 1st trimester abortions are just about on demand anywhere. 2nd it seems gets a bit more restricted, but few consider fetuses viable before the 3rd trimester.

I cited the article not as a final statement, but as a point of reference to stimulate some rational discussion.

The case in the OP then the woman had delayed way too long. She was apparently healthy, and could have delivered in any hospital, and given the baby away for adoption. The decision to deliver at home, and the "accident" are tragic for her and obviously for the child.

Wikipedia, on its Partial Birth Abortion page:
Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

If less than one-fifth of one percent of US abortions are of the partial-birth type, why is that exceedingly uncommon variant of the abortion process used as an argument against the other 99.8% of abortions? This kind of excessive focus on a tiny part of the topic indicates that the arguments used are not to be relied upon, in my view.

Originally posted by whodey
Only if she had a coat hanger and did it in a dark alley and her daddy was the father.

You really needed two edits for thát?

Originally posted by Kewpie
Wikipedia, on its Partial Birth Abortion page:
Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dila ...[text shortened]... tiny part of the topic indicates that the arguments used are not to be relied upon, in my view.

The same reason moon was crying about 13 yr old rape victims being forced to carry a baby to term. The extremes are what sell. How many 13 yr old rape victims get abortions every year?

Originally posted by dryhump
The same reason moon was crying about 13 yr old rape victims being forced to carry a baby to term. The extremes are what sell. How many 13 yr old rape victims get abortions every year?

How about the extreme of the OP, where the child is carried to term, delivered and then "accidentally killed"?