Woman Charged With First Degree Murder Of Fetus In California

Let me just speculate here.... If she had a medical license to perform abortions, she would not be charged, right? ....

Do you think anyone really wants to be a drug addict?
By all means, find and kill the dealers who gave her this stuff, she needs treatment, not jail.
Probably be cheaper to fix her than lock her up too.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I'm sorry, but pregnancy can sometimes play havoc with a womens blood pressure causing them to lose their balance. So, I guess she should just avoid stair while she is pregnant to avoid the possible risk of a involuntary manslaughter charge? Mind you, I am not pulling the lady falling down the stairs out of my hat. She fell, she miscarried, she was charged and jailed. And, what got her off the hook wasn't that everyone thought the idea that she didn't want the baby so badly she threw herself down a flight of stairs to get rid of it, but rather, an autopsy prove he baby wasn't far enough along to be considered viable.

Maybe in this case the story is as it seems and shes just an addict that put her addiction above that of her kids. But the laws seem to extend beyond that when it comes to enforcing them.

a reply to: SprocketUK

And, by all means, let's make sure none of the responsibility falls onto the sperm donors.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SprocketUK

And, by all means, let's make sure none of the responsibility falls onto the sperm donors.

Never ever does, does it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

When a baby is born a meth addict, does that baby have rights? Is that baby a human being?

She had three children born with meth in their system, no doubt made into addicts prior to birth, by a woman who planned on having the child. It's actually a premeditated act to be honest.

I know this is a tough topic and answers are hard to come by. I have no easy solution, but this is not a women's rights issue. At some point the child's welfare matters.

At the very least it's child abuse. We are not talking about abortion here, so let's not inject women's rights into a topic that has zero to do with that. She chose to have these children. Yes, you are so off topic it's clear you are avoiding the real topic.

These children were born and I ask again, do they have rights, or are they throw away people?

Why is this even a court case?
Isn't it enough that she let a stupid decision kill her baby?

She will have to live with that the rest of her life, it doesn't need any punishment added to it by the justice system.

a reply to: SprocketUK

The question is not whether it is cheaper to "fix her," it's whether she can be "fixed." I have watched meth addicts for years, and none of them can be helped, short of locking them away for their own protection, until they finally make that decision they want to change... and with meth, by then it is usually too late.

We're not talking about rational people. That stuff does something terrible to people... sucks their soul dry and destroys their body...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Trucker1

She has had to face the repercussions of that stupid mistake when she faces the kids that survived. She might not need lady justice laying on punishment, but she needs something??

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well, if anything, she should have been sterilized, after giving birth to three children with meth in their system. She cared more about her "high" than the health and well being of her babies. I say lock her up!
Becker's aunt said the 25-year-old's three other children were born with meth in their system.

I bet I know what she was trading to get the meth...

a reply to: Blaine91555

It is certainly a woman’s rights and more generally a HUMAN rights question when you are advocating for State sterilization, and you are the one who brought that up if it’s off-topic.

What is also off-topic would be the philosophical opining about what constitutes personhood and life and so-forth that permeates these threads. What is certain and factual and not up for debate is that the woman involved is an adult is a human being who has made choices that are unfortunate and have caused great harm to herself and those around her.

She’s being held to account for the harm she has done, and that will be up to a jury to decide.

System working as intended.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I don't think I posted anything about sterilization? In fact I suggested no solution at all yet?

She does need serious intervention and punishment for killing a child and I'm sure your aware of how difficult it is for children born addicted to meth, which is most certainly her fault.

In what way does the system deal with women who keep having children over and over again as addicts, harming the children and even killing them? Again, do the children have rights or are they throwaways?

Meth babies experience everything from DNA damage to psychological problems, so the addicted mother has harmed them long after birth.

My best answer would be court ordered inpatient treatment for any pregnant woman actively addicted to and using meth. A requirement for MD's dealing with them to report it for the sake of the child.

Honestly at that point who gives a damn about the mother, who clearly does not give a damn about their own child.

Meth Babies on the Rise

In addition to the physical effects of being born a so-called meth baby, these children are also believed to often experience long-term problems in terms of mental, emotional and behavioral outcomes. For example, newborns born exposed to meth more often experience behavioral and sleep problems because of how the drug interacts with the brain’s neurotransmitters. Children exposed to meth may have reduced fine motor skills that may contribute to further coordination problems.

When meth babies become school-aged, they’re more likely to be hyperactive, have learning disabilities and have angry outbursts.

These children are victims, often with no advocate, but most certainly their addict mothers are to blame.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Well, first of all, I do owe you an apology for misrepresenting your argument. You merely said that subject of our discussion “needs to be controlled” therefore, if sterilization wasn’t what you had in mind, then certainly, I was out of line and I am sorry. If so, everything I said can be applied in retrospect.

I have no use for most of what is done to children both before and after birth by what we used to call “trash” parents. By that I mean socially, financially, and ethically worthless people who typically only bring far more harm into the world than good.

Children have rights certainly. Do you take rights away from someone else to protect theirs? Do we empower the State with whatever control measures you are advocating for? Should the men she’s involved with be sterilized as well? Maybe all the guys in a 25 mile radius from where she lives?

Meth babies are a horrible fact of our modern existence, but no you won’t stop the phenomenon by sterilizing people whether that is what you are alluding to or not. Of course children have rights, and I would even argue that viable fetuses have rights as well. (What about that for a surprise ending, huh?)

And yet, if viability is the only measure in the case of determining if a woman has the rights to her own body or decide her own fate, well then, the horrors of disfigured and disabled individuals coming into the world full in their rights even though they would often be at best in various states of agony for whatever time they lived and more than likely as wards of the state. And the mother, what of her? Do we want the state making the decision between the life of the mother or the fetus?

I would advocate for a “do the least harm” solution and support public health measures to assist with addiction treatment, birth control, prophylactics, medical care for babies and children, and mothers, etc.

If we really wanted to make a difference, rather than having the state take possession of our bodies and determining what’s “best for all concerned.”

At least, in my opinion

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree, broadly.
It's also the reason I don't think she should be put on trial, I don't think she has the necessary free will to be held criminally responsible.

Dat fetus had it comin'.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We're not far apart here. I think court ordered inpatient treatment is about the only solution.

Sterilization is not something I'd suggest to be honest. It's always possible for someone to kick the habit and sterilization would be a step too far.

And yet, if viability is the only measure in the case of determining if a woman has the rights to her own body or decide her own fate, well then, the horrors of disfigured and disabled individuals coming into the world full in their rights even though they would often be at best in various states of agony for whatever time they lived and more than likely as wards of the state. And the mother, what of her? Do we want the state making the decision between the life of the mother or the fetus?

Not sure I get that entirely. You advocating for aborting addicts babies as a solution or just pointing out the difficulty of the topic?

This mother killed her child. No matter how you couch that, she killed her child and gave birth to three others that were born with meth in their system. Does society just let her keep doing that? If she were caught injecting children with meth, killing one and turning three others into addicts, what would be societies response? It would be the same thing.

a reply to: Blaine91555

We are in agreement so full the difference doesn’t count I’d bet. Nope, good to know you aren’t in favor of sterilization. Not sure how I got that bit in my teeth in regard to your post, but I was wrong.

Yeah, I knew that was convoluted when I wrote it. Here’s what I think I’m trying to say and how it applies to this case:

1. A fetus when viable must be considered as an individual with a unique legal status as basically a “ward of the state.”. If they are healthy and pose no threat to the health or life of the mother, at that point, a State has the right to legislatively control and prohibit an abortion and that’s my reading of Roe/Casey so no changes are needed.

2. As a ward of the state inextricably linked with the life and health of another person, we enter into territory more potentially horrible than mass sterilization ... does the State have the right to choose one life over another? My answer to that is a resounding no, in the case of the mother’s health/life or a child with severe disfigurement/deformity/disease. It must STILL BE the mother’s decision in consultation with a medical professional and what they have to determine is the horrible excruciating matter of choosing one life over another. It’s horrible however you look at it, but we simply cannot leave that to the government.

3. The fetus living within the meth addict was viable and thus had the special status of a ward of the state. If the mother’s choice full actions caused the death of the fetus as determined by the judicial system, then that system will determine the conclusion.

Perhaps that’s more clear?

ETA: 4. I’d rather by a factor of a million to one concentrate on ways to avoid pregnancy than to debate about how it should end.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Okay, should there be any scrutiny of the dads here? Should we check, make sure they arent addicts themselves, or worse, they were trading the drugs for sex? I mean for every meth addict mom out there, theres a dad who's sanity should be questioned, especially if the women has a history of having addicted babies.
How can we be sure this forced institutionalization will be confined to just addicts...(I already know it isnt).

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, thank you, I get it now.

I absolutely agree that avoiding pregnancy is the answer.

I'm in a strange position as far as my opinion myself, as are many I suppose. The question of is the fetus a separate human being with equal rights to the mother is one that will keep this whole topic controversial. One side is asked to condone murder, the other side struggles with the mothers rights. This topic will always be emotional more than political which makes it even more problematic.

She should definitely be charged but not with 1st degree murder.