She had a stillborn baby. Now she’s being charged with murder.

So you saying a baby born with a C section doesn't have any rights ?

 

Nope, you are CHERRY PICKING again!

The legal term INTENTIONALLY is defined as;

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intentionally/

Onus remains entirely on YOU to PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that she used Meth for the DELIBERATE INTENT to kill the fetus.

She was a DRUG ADDICT with CRAVINGS so she took DRUGS to satisfy HER cravings.

There was NO INTENT to kill the fetus!

 

Prove your BOGUS allegation.

 

No, you are wrong once again. I don't think you understand the language of that law. They are describing two separate offenses. One of them describes intentional.

 

Asinine STRAWMAN!

Why don't you research the term "natural born"?

 

Already did in multiple other threads. Wow, you have a short memory.

 

Derideo_Te, your problem is you are taking pieces of the law or Constitution and claiming they prove your point, when in reality they don't, because you're not knowledgeable about the wider context of that law or Constitution.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment may grant citizenship to some people who are born, but that doesn't mean that only those who are born have citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment is only one mechanism through which citizenship can be obtained.
You mistakenly assumed that the Fourteenth Amendment is the source in the Constitution that defines citizenship.

In the case of the UVVA, you're looking at one subsection of the law in isolation, which does not refer to the other part.

 

That is the whole point that you are MISSING!

Without INTENTION there is no VIOLATION of the UVVA law!

That NULLIFIES the law and means that it CANNOT be used to prosecute her.

 

No, you have NEVER proven that utterly BOGUS allegation of yours.

Next time you make a spurious ad hom you WILL be REPORTED!

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to PROVE that the 14th Amendment is WRONG!

And it is YOU that is doing the CHERRY PICKING!

You don't get to say that the fetus is dead and she took drugs therefore she is guilty of murder. You have to MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS of the UVVA law!

 

Correct, the 14th didn't give any rights to indians

 

Derideo_Te, this is what section C says:

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 …
​

Subsection C does not even refer to that law in this section! If it's intentional, they get charged under a different law/section that's even worse!

Your claim that section (C) "nullifies" it because there's no intent is absurd!

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. Wikipedia
Public law: Pub.L. 108–212
Statutes at Large: 118 Stat. 568–570
Titles amended: 18, 10
U.S.C. sections created: 18 U.S.C. § 1841, 10 U.S.C. § 919a
Enacted by: the 108th United States Congress

 

You should ask her, I was just reading her post, not reading into it.

 

Relax, the murder charge was probably just to force her into a plea bargain, and even if she does get convicted of it, it will most likely be irrelevant to her sentencing. Judges base sentences on the facts, not necessarily the charges.

Although sometimes charges can help highlight certain facts of the case, making the logic of the prosecution's case more clear. But in any case the prosecutor already does that during the prosecution, whether or not the defendant actually gets convicted of it.

She's going to get extra punishment for the baby dying whether or not she is actually convicted of it.

 

There is no need for a pregnant women to chronicle anything at all. Once a fertilized egg implants, (Even in the fallopian tube now a days, preparing to rupure like a microscopic marder! *Looking at you Ohio*! ), her body becomes public property apparently. There are already laws and medical procedures governing prenatal, pregnancy and birth.

Even total strangers feel entitled to an opinion on the the innermost parts of her being!

I love my children. But being pregnant is the most powerless, invasive, degrading position I have ever faced. I never had so much unwanted attention. People came out of the wood work to judge absolutely everything, my food choices, clothing, activities, sleep habits, how hot my bathwater was... how I breathed, sat, stood, moved...

literally it was like Open Season on every aspect my life and body.

There are still Drs today, who believe in doing episiotomy procedures, as a matter of routine! Even though often not necessary! (For the uninitiated, an episiotomy is that painful cut they make in your nether region to allow for easier passage, except in rare cases, totally unnecessary, but could benifit a physician in a hurry! ).

So people who feel entitled to force anyone to live that, or feel they own another's person's life and very body, are themselves guilty of conspiracy to commit assault and false imprisonment. End. Of.

 

Take a look at what stage of pregnancy this happened in.

It was a baby.

 

Sorry, but you can't be doing drugs while you're pregnant.

Drug laws exist. They say a woman can not put drugs into her body if she feels like it. Do you want to get rid of those laws too?

 

I think it's reasonable to expect you not to chain smoke, binge drink alcohol, or do meth while you're pregnant.

And yes, if you do any of those things, someone else does have the right to come in and tell you that's not what you should be doing.

 

Which would be difficult considering:
(quoting from the article linked in the op)

"Authorities told local news outlet KGPE that Becker’s three living children had also been born with the drug in their systems."

 

Derideo_Te's claim is that the baby being found with high levels of meth in its system does not prove that it was the meth that is what killed the baby.

I think there's a very obvious and likely connection though.

His argument seems to be, even if there's a 90% chance it was the meth, you can't prove it with absolute certainty.

As a rebuttal to that, I argued that the law would not give the woman the benefit of the doubt here, since it was obvious the substance she was putting into her body was endangering her child and could result in permanent harm and death.

 

Yes. I understand your point. I was responding only to a couple comments...

Personally, I see a drug addicted woman who lost a child. (or three depending on the eventual outcome). I dont see a "Murderer".

I'm extremely Pro-Choice. That couldn't be more clear, however all five of my children were persons before they were born, to me, perhaps not by law, but to me they were people, before that first breath, and I do feel this woman has suffered a great loss, as it appears she was looking to have this child and I refuse to judge why she did not seek to enter a maternity program to stay clean, because I don't know her situation, but perhaps she didn't feel she had any real options.

That may be hard for you or I to imagine, but we don't know chit about her life.

A murder charge will be of no benefit to anyone. Perhaps this will be the the future for addicted persons, but it would at a dangerous and unhealthy precedent if so.

And Dads needs to face charges also, for failure to protect, aiding and abetting, and even muder if he supplied her, (and thus his child) with the drugs.

 

They weren't able to "help her" after the last two children. What makes you think they'll be able to help her this time around?

When she pops out another crack baby, are we finally going to put our foot down and put a stop to it?

 

Them. They weren't able to help them. Someone is co creating these children with her. Dad is getting away with murder.

 

If it even is the same father.