I have so far not been able to understand a couple of things. "In states with feticide laws, it is illegal to kill an unborn fetus without the assistance of an abortionist. In other words, for nearly all intents and purposes an unborn child is treated like a person under the law, but an exception is carved out for abortion." Under Roe v. Wade and the framework of legal abortions that you speak of, the unborn is not a person. So the only philosophically-consistent way I can understand such laws would be as follows: As a legal device, the unborn is imagined to be a person, because its mother, who wants it, values it as a child. If someone kills her fetus, it is really a crime against her, but for some reason it is framed, under the aforesaid device, as a crime against the fetus. But all of that applies only if someone OTHER THAN HERSELF kills her fetus. If she herself wants to kill it, the legal device no longer has any philosophical basis, and we should revert to the philosophical model where killing is called abortion and the fetus is not a person. And now that we're back to that model, the woman who self-aborts shouldn't even be charged with practicing medicine without a license, because she's practicing only on herself. It might make sense to charge her with some controlled-substance violation, nothing more than that. OR, the solution I would prefer -- it would make sense to say that the unborn is inherently a person and that doctor-does-it abortion is feticide as well as do-it-yourself abortion. But I don't see how this marriage of antithetical philosophies can work. Also, am I correct that the court did not find proof that the child was alive when Patel abandoned it? If not, what was the basis of the neglect charge, for which she got the biggest sentence?
Good questions. I'm not a legal expert on how the feticide laws don't contradict Roe. Some people believe there is a contradiction between the laws, and I've heard at least one opinion that there isn't a contradiction because Roe never said that anybody could kill an unborn child, it only said that doctors could kill an unborn child. I would refer you to a lawyer who really understands the complexities of the matter as the real expert here. On the evidence that the child was alive at birth, based on my limited research of the subject, that was the more difficult thing to demonstrate. There was an autopsy of the baby and a doctor had some reasons to believe that the lungs had been used outside the womb, but as I said in the post, those tests are controversial because supposedly they don't always give consistent results. I'm not aware of other reasons that the jury believed the baby was born alive.
(follow-up to "Thanks. At least it restores my faith . . .") The latest (from an RH Reality Check page), apparently quoting the text of the law: "charges of feticide, which required the state prove Patel . . . 'knowingly or intentionally' terminated her pregnancy 'with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus' . . .” It sounds from this like the intention is enough to get a conviction. I'm assuming "terminated her pregnancy" can be interpreted as "caused her fetus to come out dead or alive" (but the intention being that it will come out dead).
"Some people believe there is a contradiction between the laws [etc.]" Thanks. At least it restores my faith in humanity to know that when there's something peculiar going on, some people notice it, which the media don't seem to. "the evidence that the child was alive at birth" But if it wasn't proved alive as of when she dumped it, you'd think that the charge should have been unlawful disposal of a dead body or something. Besides WNCN, I saw a couple of reports from the pro-life side; and the Redditors also took an interest in the case. But so often, even when the media isn't biased, or is biased the way I like, they're just frustrating because their coverage raises glaring questions that they don't seem to notice, leaving me wondering if I'm the one who's crazy.
[added later:] One report said: "At the sentencing, Hurley said that Patel was in a position to legally end her pregnancy, but opted for an illegal method, and later 'ensured that baby's death by placing him in the trash can with the other bathroom trash'." If that report is correct, which would only be consistent with the conviction, the jury must have decided there was reason to think that beyond just a few breaths, the baby was alive at the time of being dumped. And if the jury decided that, even if the decision can be debated, again, it's weird that reports in other media don't mention that crucial fact, or even imply otherwise -- imply that the baby took only a few breaths. In another way also, that report reflects an understanding that journalism should notice and address glaring questions: "But Indiana prosecutor Ken Cotter said that a person can be found guilty of foeticide even if the foetus survives, and Judge Elizabeth Hurley ultimately rejected the defence's argument. A jury found Patel guilty on both counts in early February, though Patel's attorney plans to appeal the verdict." This raises another question -- HOW can such a person be found guilty of feticide, rather than attempted feticide -- but at least it addressed one question. And another report seems to answer that new question: "the St. Joseph County prosecutor, Ken Cotter, said that a person can be guilty of feticide under Indiana law FOR DELIBERATELY TRYING TO END A PREGNANCY, even if the fetus survives." (Maybe the lawmakers didn't check the dictionary, but that would not necessarily mean that their law was not clear and valid, at least.)
Whenever someone on my side of any issue makes a claim, I assume the opposite is true until I can verify it independently. Just do that and you'll never go wrong.
"In states with feticide laws, it is illegal to kill an unborn fetus without the assistance of an abortionist. In other words, for nearly all intents and purposes an unborn child is treated like a person under the law, but an exception is carved out for abortion."
Under Roe v. Wade and the framework of legal abortions that you speak of, the unborn is not a person. So the only philosophically-consistent way I can understand such laws would be as follows: As a legal device, the unborn is imagined to be a person, because its mother, who wants it, values it as a child. If someone kills her fetus, it is really a crime against her, but for some reason it is framed, under the aforesaid device, as a crime against the fetus.
But all of that applies only if someone OTHER THAN HERSELF kills her fetus. If she herself wants to kill it, the legal device no longer has any philosophical basis, and we should revert to the philosophical model where killing is called abortion and the fetus is not a person.
And now that we're back to that model, the woman who self-aborts shouldn't even be charged with practicing medicine without a license, because she's practicing only on herself. It might make sense to charge her with some controlled-substance violation, nothing more than that.
OR, the solution I would prefer -- it would make sense to say that the unborn is inherently a person and that doctor-does-it abortion is feticide as well as do-it-yourself abortion.
But I don't see how this marriage of antithetical philosophies can work.
Also, am I correct that the court did not find proof that the child was alive when Patel abandoned it? If not, what was the basis of the neglect charge, for which she got the biggest sentence?
On the evidence that the child was alive at birth, based on my limited research of the subject, that was the more difficult thing to demonstrate. There was an autopsy of the baby and a doctor had some reasons to believe that the lungs had been used outside the womb, but as I said in the post, those tests are controversial because supposedly they don't always give consistent results. I'm not aware of other reasons that the jury believed the baby was born alive.
The latest (from an RH Reality Check page), apparently quoting the text of the law:
"charges of feticide, which required the state prove Patel . . . 'knowingly or intentionally' terminated her pregnancy 'with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus' . . .”
It sounds from this like the intention is enough to get a conviction.
I'm assuming "terminated her pregnancy" can be interpreted as "caused her fetus to come out dead or alive" (but the intention being that it will come out dead).
Thanks. At least it restores my faith in humanity to know that when there's
something peculiar going on, some people notice it, which the media
don't seem to.
"the evidence that the child was alive at birth"
But if it wasn't proved alive as of when she dumped it, you'd think that
the charge should have been unlawful disposal of a dead body or
something.
Besides WNCN, I saw a couple of reports from the pro-life side; and the
Redditors also took an interest in the case. But so often, even when the
media isn't biased, or is biased the way I like, they're just frustrating because their coverage raises glaring questions that they
don't seem to notice, leaving me wondering if I'm the one who's crazy.
[added later:]
One report said: "At the sentencing, Hurley said that Patel was in a
position to legally end her pregnancy, but opted for an illegal method,
and later 'ensured that baby's death by placing him in the trash can
with the other bathroom trash'."
If that report is correct, which would only be consistent with the conviction, the
jury must have decided there was reason to think that beyond just a few
breaths, the baby was alive at the time of being dumped.
And if the jury decided that, even if the decision can be debated, again,
it's weird that reports in other media don't mention that crucial fact,
or even imply otherwise -- imply that the baby took only a few breaths.
In another way also, that report reflects an understanding that journalism should notice and address glaring questions:
"But Indiana prosecutor Ken Cotter said that a person can be found guilty of
foeticide even if the foetus survives, and Judge Elizabeth Hurley
ultimately rejected the defence's argument. A jury found Patel guilty on
both counts in early February, though Patel's attorney plans to appeal
the verdict."
This raises another question -- HOW can such a person be found guilty of
feticide, rather than attempted feticide -- but at least it addressed
one question.
And another report seems to answer that new question:
"the St. Joseph County prosecutor, Ken Cotter, said that a person can be
guilty of feticide under Indiana law FOR DELIBERATELY TRYING TO END A
PREGNANCY, even if the fetus survives."
(Maybe the lawmakers didn't check the dictionary, but that would not
necessarily mean that their law was not clear and valid, at least.)