Political Crossfire Forums

What the hell...

she was convicted of ordering pills from hong kong to terminate her pregnancy. i don't know the specifics of the case but i doubt the prosecution is just making shit up. it resulted in a child the pathologist determined to be alive when it was born.

i really don't understand what your issue is.

as for why she can be charged with both, she tried to kill the fetus, and left the child once alive to die. but i agree she should have just been charged with homicide.

Against what law?

the laws she was convicted of breaking.

that is, if you were on that jury and found enough reason to convict, would you convict, or would you hang the jury or attempt to acquit as a form of jury nullification, even though she was in your eyes guilty of the crime at hand: you just didn't think it ought be a crime. or did you think she just wasn't guilty, acknowledging you don't have all the facts?

too often it all just gets conflated

I'm really not sure how they proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems like there was a heck of a lot of doubt. The conviction will probably be overturned I expect.

Unfortunately, there's got to be a line between when a baby is a baby and when it is not. If the baby was born and viable, then this lady murdered a baby. If it was not, then she isn't. Since she was the only one there and medical examiners can't say for sure that the baby was alive, she deserves the same grace we give all people on trial. Presumed innocence until proven otherwise.