Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Pro-life Guild
This is why we need fetal protection laws. UPDATE! Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Broorel

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:34 pm


A young pregnant woman was badly injured and her fetus was killed when an 18 year old girl decided to smoke pot, do some pain pills, and then go joy riding.

All the girl can be charged with is assult. Oh and for bonus points, the defenses argument is "well she(the pregnant woman) was wearing a head scarf and dark clothing, our cliant just couldnt SEE her" um, I'm sure the drugs had nothing to do with it. rolleyes This should be vehicular manslauter at least and at most felony murder(I'm not sure what driving under the influence of illegal substances is considered)-if she had killed both the woman and the fetus it certainly would be. But because she only the fetus was killed, all that can be done is charge her with assult.



I couldnt get the article to link, so I'll just post the whole thing.

A young Bensalem woman, who admitted smoking marijuana before her car hit a pregnant woman and killed her fetus, pleaded no contest to aggravated assault yesterday.

"From the bottom of my heart, I am truly, deeply sorry for everything that happened," Lauren Elliott, 18, said after leaving a Bucks County courtroom.

About the plea, Elliott said, "It won't bring the baby back."

A senior at Bensalem High School who wants to be a nurse, Elliott was driving 26 m.p.h. on the 1800 block of Brookwood Drive in Bensalem about 8:45 p.m. on Sept. 25 when she hit the pregnant pedestrian.

Fadwa Awad, 22, had walked with a plate of food from her home to her family's van, which was parked with the passenger's side against the curb. Her father and husband testified that she walked into the street, passing the front of the van and going around to the driver's-side window to talk to her husband. Their two children were in the backseat.

She had intended to hand the plate to her husband through the window before walking around to the passenger's side, her father, Jamal Awad, testified Wednesday. The family was bringing the food to Fadwa Awad's brother, who lived nearby.

Jamal Awad, who was standing on the sidewalk at the time of the crash, said his daughter stood at the car window talking to her husband for 10 to 15 seconds before she was struck.

"I saw my daughter fly," he said. "I ran to her... . I tried to wake her up."

Fadwa Awad spent five months in hospitals and a rehabilitation center and is not yet able to walk, said Deputy District Attorney Anthony C. Cappuccio. Her fetus died shortly after the accident.

The death of the fetus prompted District Attorney Diane E. Gibbons in October to call on state legislators to expand the vehicular homicide law to include fetuses. Gibbons was unable to charge Elliott with homicide under the law.

Elliott, of the 4400 block of Roselyn Lane, told police that she smoked marijuana before and while driving that night and that she smoked it daily. She also had taken a painkiller. She pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of drugs and recklessly endangering another person.

She decided to plead no contest to the aggravated assault charge and guilty to the others during a lunch break in a jury trial that started Wednesday. In accepting the pleas, Judge David W. Heckler said, "This needs to be a point of departure in your life."

He allowed Elliott to remain free on $750,000 bail. A sentencing date has not yet been set. The felony aggravated assault charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Under state law, Elliott will keep her driver's license until she is sentenced.

Elliott's attorney, William Goldman Jr., said she was receiving treatment for drug abuse. He had argued that the victim, who was wearing a head scarf and mostly dark clothing, walked in front of Elliott's car.

"This was a horrible accident," he said.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:23 pm


Every time they call that baby a "fetus", I just wanted to scream. That was her baby, her child, and that idiot- one who wants to be a nurse no less- killed him/her.

They never say how far along Fadwa was either.

Ava R.

3,500 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Hygienic 200

Tiger of the Fire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:49 pm


Ava R.
Every time they call that baby a "fetus", I just wanted to scream. That was her baby, her child, and that idiot- one who wants to be a nurse no less- killed him/her.

They never say how far along Fadwa was either.


I was thinking the exact same thing.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:59 pm


yes, it isn't fair... a life was lost and all she can do is charge for her injuries?

divineseraph


Broorel

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:09 pm


What bothers me the most is they allowed her to keep her license. She killed someone, but she doesnt even get her license taken away...where's the logic in that? Even if they didnt charge her for the killing of the fetus...she was driving intoxicated and HIT SOMEONE. Shouldn't she at least be punished for that?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:43 pm


that's not right...

divineseraph


Decrepit Faith
Crew

6,100 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Tycoon 200
  • Generous 100
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:15 pm


Broorel
What bothers me the most is they allowed her to keep her license. She killed someone, but she doesnt even get her license taken away...where's the logic in that? Even if they didnt charge her for the killing of the fetus...she was driving intoxicated and HIT SOMEONE. Shouldn't she at least be punished for that?

She didn't kill anyone by law, they can't charge her for a crime she didn't commit and she can only commit a crime if the law says she can.

Secondly, the woman who hit Mary-Beth wasn't drunk but she had driven around cars that had stopped at a cross-walk (because people were crossing it) which is how she ended up hitting - and killing - Mary-Beth and that woman only got a $400 dollar fine.

No one values life or safety anymore.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:25 pm


Beware the Jabberwock
Broorel
What bothers me the most is they allowed her to keep her license. She killed someone, but she doesnt even get her license taken away...where's the logic in that? Even if they didnt charge her for the killing of the fetus...she was driving intoxicated and HIT SOMEONE. Shouldn't she at least be punished for that?

She didn't kill anyone by law, they can't charge her for a crime she didn't commit and she can only commit a crime if the law says she can.

Secondly, the woman who hit Mary-Beth wasn't drunk but she had driven around cars that had stopped at a cross-walk (because people were crossing it) which is how she ended up hitting - and killing - Mary-Beth and that woman only got a $400 dollar fine.

No one values life or safety anymore.


Why should they, life has no inhearent value according to so many these days...

Broorel


Kasumi Ocada

Smitten Citizen

6,850 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Contributor 150
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:03 pm


eek But, isn't it true that if someone attacks a pregnant woman that they can get charged with attempted murder of the baby? confused
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:11 am


only in some states. I dont know the exact law but apparantly it didnt exist in this area.

Broorel


Broorel

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:34 pm


Here are a few other attacks on pregnant women(I'm sure you havn't heard of them since they got zero press time) it appears all women and children were killed.

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1678_0_24_0_M

Iman Muhanna Mohammad(and child)- stabbed to death 33 times by unknown person-very little investigation into the killing.

Latoya Figueroa(and child)-dead, no media coverage.

Whoever killed these women and their children should be held liable for both deaths. I am sure the father mourns the loss of both family memebers and justice can not be served unless both mother and child's death is accounted for.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:14 am


IU heard of the stabbing one, but it was reported once and then it dissapeared.

Tiger of the Fire


Jaenelle SaDiablo

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 pm


Heh. Those people DO know that Fetus means "baby" in Greek, right? So, if the "fetus" was killed, then it should count as man slaughter. =/
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:24 pm


In an interesting twist, I happened upon a topic in the pro-choice guild which concerned me greatly. A mother was killed partially due to an involuntary C-Section. Now the topic was takling about South Dakota, so I had assumed at first that it was recent. Turns out it happened in 1987, but the question still stands.

The Testimony of Lynn Paltrow

Quote:
I begin with the case of Angela Carder: Angela Carder at 27 years old and 25 weeks pregnant became critically ill. She, her husband, and her parents as well as her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital, however, called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. A lawyer appointed for the fetus used the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are separate legal persons with independent rights. This lawyer argued that the fetus had a right to life and that what Angela Carder, her husband, and her family wanted did not matter. Despite testimony that a cesarean section could kill Ms. Carder, the court ordered the surgery, finding that the fetus's rights were controlling. The surgery was performed over her explicit objections and resulted in the death of both Angela and her fetus. The fetus, or as in Angela's parents words - their "unborn grandchild" - died within two hours and Ms. Carder died two days later with the c-section listed as a contributing factor 8.


This disturbs me. What this doesn't tell you is that she had a lung tumor and needed chemo, according to This and that the baby was most likely braindead by the time the C-section was performed.

My personal stance is that when the life of the mother is in danger, it is her right to protect herself even if it harms or kills the fetus. I haven't heard of a case like this, I hope it's because it hasn't happened in a long time, but you'd think they'd be rubbing it in our faces if it did. I know they were pretty upset once they found out about this. One member decided to be extra nice and say, "They dare say they are not anti-women, that they are somehow feminists and yet their views will turn women not only something less than a man, but something less than human." Despite the fact that the people who have identified themselves as feminists have also stated before that this type of behavior is appalling.

Lynn Paltrow, the person who wrote out this testimony, goes on to say,

Quote:
Although appellate courts and leading medical organizations have now overwhelmingly rejected these forced interventions, these cases provide key examples of what "involuntary" means in the context of pregnancy and what has and will happen if pregnant women and fetuses are viewed as having independent legal rights. 11


This interested me. Now why is it that this is what WILL happen? Why can't there possibly be a way to prevent this by taking into account what has happened to prevent it from happening again? Just a thought. I'm not one for giving up, especially at the cost of 1.3 million lives a year, but whatever floats her boat.

Looking through these cases, I was interested to find that most had happened in the 80's. I'm hoping this is because we've advanced past killing one person for the sake of another person. The case with Amber Marlowe, however, happened in 2004 I believe, in Pennsylvania.

Quote:
In January 2004, Pennsylvania resident Amber Marlowe went to the hospital to deliver her seventh baby. She and her husband describe themselves as true believers in the Bible and they deeply oppose abortion. For medical reasons far from compelling, the hospital believed that Mrs. Marlow needed to have a c-section. Neither Mrs. nor Mr. Marlowe had any religious objection to surgery. Both felt however that after six other deliveries Ms. Marlowe knew her own body well enough to know that this delivery was possible without surgery. In addition, the Marlowes did not want to subject either Amber or her unborn child to unnecessary surgery that would increase risks to both, and that would unnecessarily prolong the mother's period of recovery (something that this primary caretaker of six and soon to be seven children wanted to avoid). Rather than respect her informed decision, the hospital sought and obtained a court order giving the hospital custody of the fetus "before, during, and after delivery," as well as the right to force Ms. Marlowe to have the C-section. The hospital used anti abortion legal arguments asserting the independent legal rights of the fetus. 12 Mr. and Mrs. Marlowe left the hospital before the order could be executed. Mrs. Marlowe gave birth to a healthy baby through vaginal delivery. 13

Mrs. Marlowe avoided involuntary surgery. Nevertheless, this case presents another clear example of action that would prevent voluntary medical decision-making. The hospital sought and obtained an order "permitting [the hospital] to perform a C-section delivery of Baby Doe without the consent of the Doe parents." 14


Again, disturbing.

This isn't the point of the statement. The point was to keep abortion legal and this all was just to show involuntary birthing procedures due to giving a fetus legal rights. Any thoughts?

lymelady
Vice Captain


Broorel

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:54 am


I don't know about refusing a c-section. The second story would be quite different if the child had died as a result of the mother refusing a c-section. That happened a few months ago and I believe they were charging the mother in that case. I think it is appropriate because if you refuse cancer treatment for your child, you may be held responsible for his death.

Refusing medical treatment can be a form of neglet, and I don't see why it is any different in the case of refusing a medically necessary c-section. In this case the mother happened to get lucky and the child was alright, but what if that hadn't been the case? The mother knowingly put her child in danger just because she didn't want the surgery.

In Texas they can perform an abortion on any patient without their consent if they believe it to be in the "best interest of the mother". To me that is far scarier than giving the fetus rights that require all medical attention possible to ensure a healthy delivery.

I've said this a million times, but an OB is supposed to weigh both the mothers and fetus' rights equally and treat "two patients" in a pregnancy. Thus, they are to do everything possible to save both. It sounds like the first story did not take the mothers risks into the equation and that was an offense to their medical practice.

However, it seems to me the second case was simply a concern for the fetus' life which the mother did not take under medical advice. So she decided to leave AMA and deliver her child elsewhere. Like I said, if the child had died, it would be a different situation. As it stands it was simply a woman who did not follow the direction of her doctors, but it could easily be considered neglect to leave the hospital during labour,refuse treatement, and do it "her own way" only to have the child die.

In this case the doctors were making their best medical decision and the mother decided their knowlede was irrelivent. She may have true concern over a c-section, but if it comes to the point of fetal distress I don't believe someone should be able to refuse life saving treatment for their children.
Reply
The Pro-life Guild

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum