Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Under strictly those terms, a woman could be prosecuted for not eating a healthy enough diet while pregnant if her child ended up being stillborn.
It all seems very murky and perhaps a little silly.
|
I disagree. In that case, no one could prove that she intentionally put her kids in harm's way. In the Rowland case, multiple doctors flat-out
told her that passing up the C-section could be deadly for her kids. Just because the distinction between the two is difficult to pinpoint does not mean that boundary doesn't exist.
For that matter, [/i]should[/i] an extremely negligent pregnancy (involving, for example, diet) be considered criminal negligence if it ends up harming the kid? I think so, unless the mother had no choice (if, for example, economic factors prevented her from getting proper nutrition.) Homicide, no, but a criminal offense? Yes.
But I digress. Pregnancy, like parenthood, is a responsibility. The risk of pregnancy (sexual intercourse) is undertaken voluntarily, and on top of that, abortions are still legal for those who don't want this responsibility. If that mother chose to carry her kids to term, then she chose to take on the responsibility that comes with it to put her kids first. C-section is a common procedure and is relatively safe (studies put the maternal death rate at 0.1%, maximum... most studies show much lower rates -
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/vbacjjg.html)
And, in a court of law, the defendant's history can be used to establish character. Given this woman's history toward her kids (e.g. the candy bar incident, and the fact that COCAINE and ALCOHOL are present in the twin that lived), her intent in refusing the C-section is shady at best.