Welcome to Thunderdome

Woman gives birth to stillborn baby and is charged with murder.

Why? The toxic levels of meth in her system at the time. And yes, the fetus had meth in it.

This is interesting. Abortion isn't murder depending on the state (and this is strictly in a legal sense, not opinion). However, if you kill a pregnant woman, prosecutors will often add on an additional murder charge.

I think I'm going to lean towards yes. I'm going that way because she intended to have the child. Based on the previous paragraph, which is legal precedent, I'd argue in this case, this is murder.

I'm going to lean towards no. She needs help.

So did that baby.

GORDON wrote: So did that baby.

Yes, which, if I'm correct, would have needed to go through the mother.

I don't think "yeah i killed someone but darn it i just need help because of the disease I volunteered for" has ever kept anyone out of prison.

Well, maybe it has. I don't know.

GORDON wrote: I don't think "yeah i killed someone but darn it i just need help because of the disease I volunteered for" has ever kept anyone out of prison.

Well, maybe it has. I don't know.

I think society has more to gain from treating people and helping them than locking them up, in many cases.

I question that. This woman has already made at least two major life mistakes we know of, one of which killed a person.

TheCatt wrote: I think society has more to gain from treating people and helping them than locking them up, in many cases.

First of all, I wasn't asking "Should she be charged with murder". I was asking, "Based on the way the law has been defined for fetuses, do you think murder is just in this case".

As for your statement, I think it's a 50/50 proposition. Can we save some people from the evil of drugs? Absolutely, and I know some of them. However, are some people unrecoverable? Absolutely and I know some of them. the question really lies in "when does it become a waste of time and resources." I'm sure someone would argue any life is worth the time and resources, but if efforts are taking away from someone else... How many is acceptable to lose to save one?

This woman just murdered her child in an insanely selfish act. What are the odds that she is recoverable?

I want her to be saved, but is it realistic? We can't get people to wear masks during a global pandemic or get their kids vaccinated. What are the odds we have the ability to save these lost souls?

Also, if a home owner makes a split second decision to shoot an intruder believing their life is in danger, many of our citizens believe the home owner should be prosecuted. Meanwhile, this woman makes a clear decision that she has time to make, knowing she is responsible for another life, yet goes through with said decision anyway and kills the fetus. Why are we persecuting the home owner and not the woman?

Leisher wrote: First of all, I wasn't asking "Should she be charged with murder". I was asking, "Based on the way the law has been defined for fetuses, do you think murder is just in this case".

The poll just says "Is it murder?"

Leisher wrote: However, are some people unrecoverable? Absolutely and I know some of them. the question really lies in "when does it become a waste of time and resources."

Age 30.

Leisher wrote: This woman just murdered her child in an insanely selfish act. What are the odds that she is recoverable?

I'm sexist, so I'm more sympathetic to women.

Leisher wrote: Also, if a home owner makes a split second decision to shoot an intruder believing their life is in danger, many of our citizens believe the home owner should be prosecuted. Meanwhile, this woman makes a clear decision that she has time to make, knowing she is responsible for another life, yet goes through with said decision anyway and kills the fetus. Why are we persecuting the home owner and not the woman?

I get your argument. I don't entirely disagree, but I would hope to give her another chance.

As I've said before, we have enough people, now. We can start weeding out the shit ones with nothing of value lost.

TheCatt wrote: The poll just says "Is it murder?"

I know. It's why I explained it to you! Keep up!

TheCatt wrote: Age 30.

You dick. Ha! I was expecting that to be a scientific study. Still, 30 might be a perfect cutoff.

TheCatt wrote: I'm sexist, so I'm more sympathetic to women.

Me too.

TheCatt wrote: I would hope to give her another chance.

I honestly would too, but she's probably going to be a really, really tough one to save. She killed her baby and will want to escape that memory and feeling through more drugs.

GORDON wrote: As I've said before, we have enough people, now. We can start weeding out the shit ones with nothing of value lost.

Harsh, but it has merit.

Leisher wrote: You dick. Ha! I was expecting that to be a scientific study. Still, 30 might be a perfect cutoff.

I was thinking about linking that "Your personality is basically locked by age 30" study from some time ago, but this was better.

Leisher wrote: She killed her baby and will want to escape that memory and feeling through more drugs.

She has 4 years to get it together.

People say "All human life is precious!" like it's a universal checkmate to any argument, but looking at how humans are treated globally, human life has very little value, empirically speaking.

GORDON wrote: People say "All human life is precious!" like it's a universal checkmate to any argument, but looking at how humans are treated globally, human life has very little value, empirically speaking.

Gordon is killing it lately.

You know, maybe Logan's Run was onto something? Maybe, as a species, we either need to begin investigating what number of humans the Earth can properly support OR we need to begin working together towards habitation in space.

"If the Human Garbage Disposal Committee came around and accused you of being a decent human being, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

Not sure why I put that in quotes. That was me, just now.