Woman shoots self in stomach and kills full term fetus

[nini]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102&page=1


Murder or abortion?

````
Prosecutors say that on the morning she was scheduled to give birth, Skinner drove to an auto dealer's parking lot, took a gun, and shot herself in the belly, killing the fetus in an act of self-abortion. Skinner was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion.

Is Skinner a criminal?

Today, a Virginia judge said no. The charges were dropped, her case dismissed.

Should he have ruled otherwise?

The law in question states that it is illegal to administer or cause an illegal abortion on an expectant mother.

```````````````



I'm pro-choice but waiting until the baby is at full term and putting a gun to her stomach isn't the same thing.

Flame away if you want, but I believe it's the responsibility of a woman to act on these things early on and not wait until the fetus is viable and near birth. At the point she was she should have had the kid and gave it up for adoption.

I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she was at her wits end and for that she has my sympathy. What a tragic story.

[babylonsister]

1. No flames from me. That is tragic and the woman sounds

unhinged. I'm shocked at the judge's ruling.

[Warpy]

6. I'm not. It was a compassionate ruling

and I hope this woman gets some help. She desperately needs it.

I haven't walked in her shoes. I don't know what caused her to risk her life with a gunshot because she couldn't bear to bring a baby into her situation.

I would imagine the whole story is gut wrenchingly tragic.

[elehhhhna]

82. Yep. Well said.

[sharp_stick]

2. Very Weird

I don't know why someone would wait until delivery time to do this. Was she blocked from having an abortion earlier by someone or did she plan to have the baby and then snap? When you get the fetus to term you may as well deliver and give the baby up for adoption. Truly bizarre.

[madmusic]

3. If a man can get 5 to 20 for possession of pictures and nothing else.

She sure as hell can get at least as much.

[Divine Discontent]

37. this is a disgusting act

and she's obviously insane. that's my opinion. what a sad event in her life, and sadly, a baby that was about to come out of her was killed.

she should get arrested for performing an abortion on herself, if that's the law. is there reckless use of gun charges also?

this is not your normal abortion story, this was a full term fetus that goes beyond the normal debate - a woman's civil right to choose shouldn't even be an issue for this.

[madmusic]

108. Agreed.

And I also agree there was a lot more going on than what we might term psychopathy. But that was my point. There is almost always something more going on and there is almost always a means to express compassion before the fact, before it is too late.

Law and order and nothing else is the only answer in the rarest of cases. It is difficult to reconcile the contradiction in mandatory 5 to 20 terms for mere possession of pictures without any physical contact and at the same time have extreme compassion for someone who not only had physical contact but murdered like this.

Somewhere along the line justice got lost in politics and until contradictions like this get resolved, it will be difficult to respect compassion or the law in any form of holistic coherence.

I'm not implying she should be convicted of murder, or that abortion should be banned, but am only suggesting another look at selective, politically motivated compassion. Is that really compassion at all or is it merely a political agenda?

[readmoreoften]

102. women can also get 5 to 20 for possession of pictures and nothing else.

There's no gender inscribed or even implied in that law. When Canada outlawed pornography the first thing to shut down was a lesbian bookstore.

[madmusic]

112. Yeah, right.

It's all equal. And even if women were charged and sentenced equally, a picture and nothing else does not equal a bullet in a brain.

Or do you think it does? You imply that since men and women can both get 5 to 20 for pictures, that's fine and in comparison this murder is nothing.

I say bullshit.

Mm, let's see, bullet or picture, bullet or picture.

Yeah, tough one. If society thinks possession of a picture is good for 20 years, then it cannot logically and in good conscious say a bullet into any brain is worth less. Not without being totally hypocritical.

[readmoreoften]

117. Uh. Where did I say that? I just corrected your sexist bullshit.

Possession of pornography is not a gender dependent crime. Women can and HAVE been charged with possession of pornography and running adult websites. Why not say "if a woman can go to jail for 5-20 years for possesion of pornography than this woman should go to jail as well"? (It's still a shitty argument, none the less because one thing has nothing to do with another)

I made no comment on the case because I'm not a judge, I'm not on the jury, and I don't know a single fucking detail of the incident. Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to fly off the handle, fine. Just don't fly all over me.

[madmusic]

118. I fly where I want to.

It's easy to stay out my air space.

This is the typical response when called on hypocrisy.

[LWolf]

127. I don't understand.

Are the "pictures" a reference to a pornography law? What connection is there between laws about pornography and laws about abortion or murder?

I find the situation with this woman, her to-term unborn infant, and her action with the gun horrifying, for all obvious and possible reasons. It seems like the legal consequences would hinge on interpretation of laws about ending pregnancy, shooting people, and self-shooting.

Really, while the infant paid the ultimate price here, the case seems more about where to draw the line about "choice" than anything else. Are you equating pornography, or child porn, with choice?

What are the limits of personal choice?

[madmusic]

130. No, there is a lot of compassion for the mother in this thread.

And rightfully so. Still, no matter her history, she killed a child. So I'm questioning compassion and justice in this context compared to possession of child porn. As far as I know, and I'm about 99.9% positive, I have never downloaded any child porn. I'm 100% certain I never viewed any. So I'm not trying to legalize that any more than anyone else is trying to legalize what this mother did.

All I'm asking is, why do so many have compassion for this woman when she killed the most helpless child there can be, one in the womb? This is not to argue the technical point if the baby was human yet or not, or a legal person or not. Again, I'm only asking about compassion. Why should this woman earn so much compassion when what she did is irreversible? And the reason for comparing it to child porn is because "it's for the children." True enough, but someone who posses child porn did not necessarily do ANY harm to ANY child other than possess the picture.

So I'm questioning the debate in relation to compassion and sentence. A man, usually, will get a whole lot time, up to 20 years for the child porn, without ever personally harming a child, but in this case there is a chance this mother didn't commit any crime at all, legally or morally, and deserves no punishment.

Is it because so many understand this mother's anguish and helplessness and cannot understand an interest in child porn and so their is no empathy for the man? (I can't understand the interest either, but that should make no difference if the punishment should fit the crime.) Or is it possible pro-choice people project their guilt of abortions onto the child porn possessor? Or is it because there was nothing sexual involved with the shooting? Why the difference in compassion?

Really, it doesn't make any sense to me, but then 20 years for possession of pixels doesn't make any sense either. (One man just got over 200 years.) Nor does shooting one's own infant before birth make any sense.

I'm trying to understand this contradiction that is so widespread. Crime, punishment, compassion, justice, they don't make sense in this comparison in the context of the punishment should fit the crime.

Thanks for asking and thanks for listening.

[madmusic]

133. Can anyone answer this?

[LWolf]

154. That's a good explanation.

Thanks for clarifying it for me.

I think people who create a market for child porn, therefore giving the actual in-person perps motivation to produce it, are liable whether they ever saw or interacted with a child in person. They create the market, and therefore they create some of the abuse, whether or not they do it themselves. Not that there aren't plenty of people who abuse children without a market incentive, of course.

I also think there should be consequences for this woman. I just don't know what those consequences should be. I'd have to know the whole story before making up my mind.

I think this particular incident stirs up some of the unresolved issues we face as humans. How sacred is life, how responsible are we to protect and nurture life, where do we, as consumers on the earth, draw the line, legally and morally? Should the legal line be in the same place as the moral line, and how much should compassion have to do with consequences?

I don't have answers. I personally lean towards compassion for all offenders, as long as they are prevented from causing harm to others ever again. I just haven't figured out how to accomplish that.

[me b zola]

136. Do you want to talk about equality in charging & sentencing re pregnancy

Do you want to talk about equality in charging & sentencing re pregnancy and child rearing?

Women don't get prenant alone, but yet they so often carry the burden alone, and quite often the woman never wants to become impregnated to begin with.

~A woman uses drugs/alcohol during pregnancy she is sentenced to prison and loses custody. A man who uses substances that cause congenital birth defects never sees the inside of a prison cell.

~A girl becomes pregnant by her father--who does she turn to?

~A woman becomes pregnant by her abuser--WTF does she do?

~A woman becomes pregnant and in the last trimester the man leaves her penniless to fend for herself and the baby


A normal fucking mind does not abandon, kill, or abuse a baby/child because of harsh circumstances, but not only should we not underestestimate what horrible circumstances can push a person to do, we should ask ourselves--WHY IS THE MAN ALWAYS ABSOLVED OF RESPONSIBLITY?

[madmusic]

151. ALWAYS!

Never, ever, trust absolutes. It is ALWAYS the sign of propaganda.

[flyarm]

4. what another "fundie " woman went nuts???????? forced to have her baby

fundies go nuts!!...sorry i couldn't resist..

it just always seems to me, the woman who do this shit are holy rollers..telling others how they should deal with their own bodies!! then they go off the deep end..

fly

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. er...where do you get 'fundie'?

there is mention of the word 'Lord' one time in the article sited. Doesn't look like she told anyone what to do with their body. Looks to me like she had an abusive boyfriend and was looking for a way out of that...

But hey, keep carrying those prejudices. They seem to be working for you.

sP

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

5. Abortion is a medical procedure

This was not.

[originalpckelly]

7. Who the fuck DOES THIS? Geese, just get a damn abortion...

fucking nutcase!

[MADem]

28. Someone who is poor, broke, crazy, with two kids, and in need of

medication and serious psychiatric intervention.

This isn't the act of a normal, sane, healthy and happy person. This is the act of a sad and tragic "fucking nutcase" as you termed her.

If you read the article, she wanted to get an abortion, but she had no money and her boyfriend refused to help.

It's an argument for comprehensive health care for every American.

[JoDog]

32. To me, the question isn't so much...

why didn't she have access to a low cost or free abortion. The question is why didn't she have access to low-cost birth control? Or a woman's shelter? Or a mental health councilor? Or a social worker who didn't have 3 times the caseload they should have?

This woman already had 2 children, and clearly never wanted a third. There are so many levels at which this tragedy could have been prevented. Every woman should have or be able to get information on how not to get pregnant. But the fundies have done so much to restrict sexual education and access to birth control that a lot women either don't know what their options are or can't take advantage of them. Then, something like this happens and they scream "sinner!"

[MADem]

33. Indeed. It's just a horribly sad and unnecessary situation. NT

[Clark2008]

42. Agreed - but I just wanted to add

that not all avenues to prevent pregnancy actually do so.

I'm pregnant (but happily married and fine with the pregnancy) for the second time. Both my children were birth-control babies.

I just wanted to note that, despite counseling regarding the subject, nothing is fool-proof and; therefore, that is why abortion should be accessible to those, like this poor woman, who need it.

[piedmont]

123. Exactly...

This just doesn't seem to be an abortion-rights case-- it's a case of our most vulnerable people being let down or victimized by a "faith-based" medical care system.

[Red Right and BLUE]

149. Birth control is not 100%

Perhaps this was her story and further added to her fear and instability.

[atreides1]

8. So are there levels of Pro-Choice?

And who gets to define these levels?

This is a tragedy, and if she had access to the appropriate support system it could have been avoided.

[nini]

15. IMHO - there are levels. How the heck to define them is the problem

Most state's laws prohibit abortions after 4 months or so.. There are some guidelines in place. Surely a full-term fetus with a physically healthy mother doesn't fall doesn't fall into the 4 month rule.

[MADem]

25. That isn't the issue, though. The issue here is control of one's own

body, and that's what made the ruling so problematic.

It's against the law for SOMEONE ELSE to perform an abortion after a certain gestational phase, but there's the separate issue of control of one's OWN body. If you start taking that away, then at what point do women have to report to the state breeding farm, since they no longer control their own persons?

In any event, they've dismissed the charges against this seriously unwell woman permanently. Any changes to women's rights to control their own persons will happen at the legislative level if at all: http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/articles/2006/10/20/news/news2.txt

According to published reports, the prosecutor in this case said they have no recourse at this point and it is now up to the legislature, an apparent reference to the state lawmakers perhaps passing a law that includes such crimes in the future.

[nini]

31. I understand the ruling and since the woman has mental issues

I agree.

I was speaking in more general terms.


Tragic situation.

[rman]

17. There are legal limits to how late in the pregancy abortion is allowed

Mere hours before birth is definately to late, legally speaking.

This has nothing to do with "levels of Pro-Choice".

[novalib]

39. In The Case Of Protection of The Life and Health

In the case of protecting the life and health of the mother, the law is just as it should be.

Even hours before birth is DEFINITELY NOT TOO LATE -- if the mother's life or health is in dnager.

If a mother cannot choose to terminate her pregnancy because her own life or health might be in danger, then she is nothing more than an incubator.

[rman]

148. I think "pro choice" is not primarily about medical reasons

for abortion.

[Nikia]

152. Shooting oneself would be detrimental to her life and health

She called 911 after the shooting. If she had not sought medical treatment, she may have died. There was a possibility that she would have died anyway. Shooting oneself in the abdomen is not like minor self topical surgery at all.
If her life and health were really in danger, she could have been treated accordingly at the hospital which probably treated her for the gunshot.
You aren't making very good arguements.
I understand that the judge was trying to set precedance. Pregnant women should not be charged with terminating a late term fetus by accident (Did she look both ways before getting hit by that car)0 or by engaging in risky behaviors (drug/alcohol use or other unhealthy habits).
I do think that some kind of court ordered mental treatment should have been ordered. She has already proven that she does not seek outside help for her problems. Such treeatment may have been the only way for her to have gotten the help that she needs. I suppose though if there is no crime, there is no ordered treatment. It is a shame because it would be beneficial for her and her children.

[mondo joe]

20. Actually, there are.

And I personally know abortion providers who won't perform a termination past a certain point in pregnancy without a legitimate medical reason.

[never_get_over_it]

34. No

once a fetus is viable outside the woman's womb - with no risk to the Mother's health or life than the time for choice has passed...the timing of viability is clearly debatable but not in this case.d I am truly stunned that charges were dropped....its so funny just looking at the thread of the 89 year old who was found guily of vehicular manslaughter - very little sympathy for him on that thread - but here so much sympathy - I really don't get it...

On the day she was to give birth - the choice for her was to give birth to the baby which is absolutely what it was at the time and put the BABY up for adoption or keep it. This was murder...

[lvx35]

9. Any sane ethics of abortion would say this is wrong.

Its obvious that a zygote is not a living baby, and all the early stages are not human and conscious in any real way. But when your talking right before the fetus is born, your talking about a final product, a baby.

This is exactly why abortion should be safe and accessible for women, so that this sort of thing can be avoided.

[rman]

10. kinda late for abortion

The difference between killing a full term fetus and killing a newborn can be a matter of only a few hours. Not a substantial difference, in my opinion.

[originalpckelly]

13. You got it...

I can't believe anyone would side with this woman.

[Scout]

113. I can't believe the people on here who are so judgemental. n/t

[MADem]

11. Oi vey...we might not hear the end of this for awhile. Let's hope this

doesn't head towards Schiavo Land.

Tammy Skinner was a poor, desperate 22-year-old with two young children and another one on the way. She said her boyfriend wouldn't pay for an abortion, so she carried her pregnancy to term. ... The law in question states that it is illegal to administer or cause an illegal abortion on an expectant mother.

But Skinner's defense lawyer, Kevin Martingayle, argued that the law did not make it a crime for a mother to cause her own abortion. Ultimately, that argument convinced Circuit Court Judge W. R. Carter.

If someone else had pulled the trigger, he or she would be criminally accountable. Because it was the pregnant woman herself, no crime was committed...the Commonwealth of Virginia filed a direct indictment against Skinner, putting her case back in the courtroom. ... Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon in Richmond, Va., wrote that equated Skinner's case with the abortion movement as a whole.

"This case reveals all the evil fangs on the evil face of legal abortion on demand," Fournier said.

Actually, what this case reveals is that if that woman had access to safe termination and didn't have to sweat the cash up front, this never would have happened. Some decent HEALTH CARE in this country would have eliminated this entire sad event.

That said, it's manna from heaven for the anti-abortion crowd. They'll take this case of an unhinged, sad, stressed out young woman, and extrapolate the fuck out of it.

[damntexdem]

12. There is a bigger story behind this.

This is not your 'normal' self-induced abortion. I rather suspect that preaching responsibility to someone who has acted in this way is a little mistargeted -- would you preach responsibility to someone undergoing a psychotic break? This approach to 'abortion' does not appear to be that of a rational person. So, I suggest that the action bespeaks a person who is considerably beyond her wit's end.

But assume for a moment that she was fully rational and thought she knew what she was doing -- and was aiming for abortion rather than suicide. Even if she were irresponsible, is it still, or should it still be, her choice?

[originalpckelly]

14. A couple of hours before the child is born?

Would you have a problem with her killing it the second it was born?

Personally, I think this is the most fucked-up thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

[MADem]

23. It sure is, but that said, it speaks to the mental state of the woman

She's clearly unwell.

And beyond that, while horrific, you have to beware the slippery slope. Either the body belongs to the woman, or it doesn't. Does the state have control of the woman's body at a certain point in time? When is that? Three months pregnant? Six? Seven? When?

Can the woman having a sip of champagne at a wedding while five months along be prosecuted for attempting to harm the foetus? How about the pregnant woman who neglects to take her vitamins, or doesn't eat what the doctor says should be her daily minimum requirement of say, green leafy vegetables? Lock her up? How should we punish the pregnant woman who just wants to lay on the couch eating ice cream and pickles, and not get up and go to her YMCA prenatal exercise class? Put her in a halfway house/boot camp?

That's the slippery slope if we go down this road in a courtroom setting. What's more useful is to work towards preventing anyone from feeling so damn desperate that they feel they've no other choice in the first place. Education is the first step--readily available birth control (if anyone's a candidate for NORPLANT I suspect it is this woman); the "Plan B" option and reproductive health care being more readily available to the poor and uninsured is another step...but this case is NOT the norm, though the right will grab it and try to paint it as a "logical conclusion" to Roe.

I just hope they don't try to Schiavo this thing...but, hey, they're DESPERATE for an issue, aren't they? And this has ALL the dramatic elements. If the mother to be were a blue eyed blonde, it would be page one from now until election day.

The latest news is that the woman is completely off the hook, and any further action will have to be legislated for future application in cases of this nature: http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/articles/2006/10/20/news/news2.txt

A woman who shot herself earlier this year, killing her unborn, full-term baby, will face no further charges.

On Thursday, Circuit Court Judge Westbrook Parker dropped a felony charge of producing an abortion or miscarriage against Tammy Skinner.....According to published reports, the prosecutor in this case said they have no recourse at this point and it is now up to the legislature, an apparent reference to the state lawmakers perhaps passing a law that includes such crimes in the future.

[Scout]

114. Personally, I think you must have led a pretty sheltered life. n/t

[MADem]

18. The entire article, all four pages, is so instructive

All of you ladies out there of childbearing years, or anyone with children in that range, take note--your loved one could be "under the gun" and subject to harsh "state control of the womb" if the anti-abortion crowd gets their way on this matter:

Extending the illegal abortion law to include expectant mothers would open up many more questions and suspicions than the court could — or perhaps should — consider, he argues.

"What if she falls under the stairs under suspicious circumstances?" Martingayle asked. "What if she gains weight? Or not enough weight? What if she didn't follow the right diet or her doctor's recommendations? Was she trying to kill the baby?"

"It turns every expectant mother into a potential criminal," Martingayle said. "If they can convince a jury that she did it on purpose, than the expectant mother becomes a target." ...Questions of prenatal culpability, Martingayle said, would "need to go through the legislative process, where words get carefully chosen."

[MamaBear]

16. Responsibility to act implies choice.

Did this woman think she had a choice? What would drive a woman to take such a drastic, dangerous, perhaps suicidal step?

I have a hard time believing she woke up in the morning and was surprised to discover she was almost ready to give birth.

I'm going to start with compassion with this one until I learn something that would make me feel more judgmental. Acts of such desparation are usually not arrived at calmly and rationally.

I'm glad judges in this country still have some discretion in cases like this. If we were under some Christian form of sharia law, we'd be picking up stones and meeting in the town square.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. This is not an issue of pro/anti choice. Someone shot their self

When a person, any person, shoots their self in the stomach it's a sign that they are mentally unwell. Be that person male, female, young, old, black or white, etc. This person needed mental health treatment which, for whatever reasons, she did not receive.

[deaniac21]

21. If we had decent gun control laws this would never have happened.

[Maine-ah]

22. Bullshit.

[MADem]

24. She would have used a knife in that case. She was clearly unwell NT

[helderheid]

26. No flames. I'm pro-choice too but this is not the same thing.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. "Danger to self and others"

I think shooting yourself for whatever reason should be grounds for a mental health intervention.

[MADem]

30. Good point--those two kids of hers might end up in foster care

or at some long-suffering relative's house.

She surely needs some medication and help. In a big way.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I agree with you. nt

[huskerlaw]

35. No flames here, but...

from a legal standpoint, I believe the judge was correct.

In Virginia law, if an abortion is deemed illegal, Statute 18.2-71 — the hotly contested statute involved in this case — makes a criminal out of "any person administer to, or cause … any drug or other thing" with intent to destroy an unborn child.

Martingayle, the defense attorney, argued that there was nothing to contest. The meaning of the statute was crystal clear.

He said that "any person" meant anyone other than the mother, who is protected by the principal of expectant mother immunity.

Martingayle cites a 1997 Florida case in which a teenage mother shot her womb, effectively giving herself an abortion.

The woman in that case, State vs. Ashley, was acquitted, as was the mother in a similar 1998 case in Georgia.

On the other hand, the prosecution argues, that "any person" means all persons. The law applies to everyone, including a woman giving herself the abortion.

The legal question turns on the definition of the word "any". Since the Virginia court didn't have any Virginia cases that told them how "any" was legally defined, they turned to cases from Florida and Georgia, both of which said that "any" meant "anybody but the mother".

Of course now the Virginia legislature is free to more clearly define the word "any"...so that in the future it includes the mother (and I guaran-damn-tee you that they will).

Frankly, narrowing the definition to include the mother is dangerous. There's one hell of a slippery slope from there.

As for this instance, the mother was clearly at the end of her rope and instead of discussing whether or not what she did was wrong (leave that to the court, and legally it wasn't), we should be discussing WHY she did what she did...and what we can do to make sure another woman in her situation isn't forced to make the same decision.

[nini]

122. I agree.. I understand legally the decision was correct.

It's just disgusting to even comprehend the whole mess.

[novalib]

HOW UTTERLY TRAGIC!!!!

How utterly tragic that this poor felt that she had no other option.

She must be living some place in Virginia. She probably lived somewhere without access to a clinic -- and without access to any social network.

Her desperation makes me want to cry.

But the judge ruled correctly. There was NO murder -- what se did was no different from using a pair of pliers to extract a tooth.

[deaniac21]

38. Well, if the tooth could live on it's own anyway.....

[novalib]

40. Doesn't Matter

It's the woman's body.

And so it is her choice.

If the tooth or the fetus threatens her life or her health, she has the RIGHT to take the steps necessary to remove it.

If she is unable to get to a dentist, then she uses pliers to pull the tooth.

If, as in this case, she cannot locate a doctor that she can afford, then she uses whatever means she needs to to end her pregnancy.

The tooth is not a baby, and neither is the fetus.

[mondo joe]

43. Threatened her life or health?

The fetus she was about to deliver or the gun she used?

I fully support any woman's right to choose. But even among abortion providers, many will not do a third trimester abortion without a threat to the life or health of the woman. This was neither.

[novalib]

49. What is Your Source?

What is your source for saying that there was not threat to the life or health of this poor, desperate woman?

Are you a medical porfessional?

Did you examine this woman?

I am willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt -- I am, without having examined her, willing to say that she clearly felt that there was a threat to her life or to her health.

Women do not just "choose" to terminate their late-term pregnancies, and I don' think this woman did so either. I am willing to say that she must have felt that continuing her pregnancy constituted a severe threat to her life or health.

Look at what she did.

Why else would she have done what she did?

[mondo joe]

53. What is yours?

For that matter, what would hers be?

Why else would she have done it? She was scared, she was panicked, for all I know she may be mentally ill. But there's nothing to indicate it was a threat to her life or health.

[novalib]

63. I Told You

I told you that I had no source.

But I also told you that I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

And it really doesn't matter, anyway.

She did not "kill" any human being -- she used an extraordinary method to terminate a pregnancy.

Like I said earlier, it's like using a pair of pliers to remove a tooth.

[mondo joe]

64. Well just so you admit you're making shit up.

And though I'm 100% pro choice, you really are full of shit on this point.

A full term fetus is not the same as a tooth. If it were, it wouldn't require a threat to life or health to terminate it.

[novalib]

68. I Think You Made Up

I think you actually made up the notion that there was no threat to her life or health.

I guess were even.

Excpet that you seem to want to sit in judgment of this poor, desperate woman and suggest that what she did was wrong.

I don't want to sit in judgment of her.

So I won't say that what she did was wrong.

[mondo joe]

72. I'm going on everything in the report.

No mention of medical threat to life or health.

Am I willing to judge her? Sure. I'm willing to judge George Bush, and Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh also. Judgement is the expression of our critical faculty.

[novalib]

78. Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh -- and this Poor Woman!!!!????

Did I read that right??!!

Are you saying that this poor, desperate women who was driven to such an action is in the same category are three of the biggest slimeballs in the world???

You say it yourself -- "no mention of medical threat to life or health"

No mention.

You, though, want to say that there was NO threat to her life or health.

I, however, in the absence of any information, am willing to say that she must have felt a threat to her life or health.

It was her body.

She had the right to do whatever she wanted to.

I will NOT judge.

And I certainly WILL NOT put her in the same category as Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh!!!!

[mondo joe]

94. Not just them. Anyone and everyone.

She's is exactly the same category: people.

I am using all the available information. You're addingto it.

If she was at medical risk of life or health her physician would have been called on to arrange for a medically necessary abortion.

[novalib]

100. If She Was At Medical Risk, She Would Have Called Her Doctor...

"If she was at medical risk, she would have called her doctor".

Except that she had been verbally and mentally abused by her boyfriend.

She was stressed out.

That's in the artcile.

The article also says this:

""It turns every expectant mother into a potential criminal," Martingayle said. "If they can convince a jury that she did it on purpose, than the expectant mother becomes a target." "

I don't want every expectant mother turned into an potential criminal.

[mondo joe]

103. If it's not medical risk she doesn't meet the criteria.

By the ay, what's the penalty in your state for performing an abortion without a medical license?

[novalib]

105. I Live in Virginia

I live in Virginia -- where this case was decided.

The woman in this case was found NOT GUILTY of performing an illegal abortion.

(It says so in the article)

[LisaL]

61. You are making the crap up, which is just not there.

Neither her life nor her health was in danger.
She did it because she didn't want the child and her boyfriend was abusive.
Why make crap up to bolster your argument?

[novalib]

67. Soooo.....

You're saying that the reason you think she terminated her pregnancy ("she did it because she didn't want the child (duh!) and her boyfriend was abusive") doesn't meet your definition for why a woman should have an abortion.

By your own statement, you say that her boyfriend was abusive.

She likely felt that having the baby might make her abusive boyfriend do something that would endanger her life or health.

Using what you say, it seems to me that she chose to terminate her pregnancy because she feared that having the baby would endager her life or health.

[mondo joe]

69. self delete

---

[LisaL]

44. Again, nonsense.

The fetus did not threaten her life.
If she couldn't afford the child, all she had to do is to give it up after the child was born.

[mondo joe]

65. If it threatened her health or life I'd think any area emergency

room would have arranged the ternmination.

[nini]

46. Then why are their laws prohibiting abortion after 12-16 weeks?

There are limits to terminating pregnancys.


Yes, the law did not address this situation - however, there is a difference between aborting a 10 week fetus and one you're going to deliver the next day.

To compare this to pulling a tooth is a bit much.

[novalib]

52. The Life and Health of The Mother is ALWAYS Paramount.

Any law that attempts to prohibit abortion without providing an exception to allow abortion if the mother's life or health is endangered is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[LisaL]

56. There was no danger to her health or her life, until she shot herself.

Why make up something that is not there?

[novalib]

74. And Just How Do You Know????

And just how do you KNOW for certain that there was no danger to her health or life??

Did you examine her?

Have you spoken with her to determine if she felt that her life or health was in danger is she gave birth?

(Neither did I).

Some here seem to want to say that what she did was wrong.

I will not judge her -- and I certainly will NOT say that what she did was WRONG!!

I am willing to say that she must have felt that her life or health was in danger.

[mondo joe]

76. Do you think shooting someone is a threat to their life or health?

Just wondering.

[novalib]

80. Yes

And I also think that there are risks to someone's life or health if they remove their own tooth with a pair or pliers.

Using a life-threatening or health-endangering procedure to attempt to resolve another life-threatening or health-endangering condition happens sometimes.

[mondo joe]

62. But up above you said it was no different than removing a tooth.

In fact you don't need to have your life or health threatened to remove a tooth.

Make up your mind: is a full term fetus NO DIFFERENT from a tooth, or is it something so different that it actually requires a threat to her life or health?

[LisaL]

41. tooth?

The same as a tooth? What a ridiculous thing to say. So, if somebody else shot an expectant mother and killed basically ready to be born fetus, that person should not be charged with murder either? Because that clearly what that ruling is saying.

[novalib]

45. If Someone Shoots and Expectant Mother...

If someone shoots an epxectant mother, then that person ought to be charged with attempted murder.

Because, clearly, the person doing the shooting intended to murder someone.

Do you know who? (Hint: It is not the fetus)

The person doing the shooting could also be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Do you know who the person would be assaulting?? (Hint: It is not the fetus).

But all this is beside the point, anyway.

Because NO ONE ATTACKED AN EXPECTANT MOTHER!!!!

A poor, desparate woman took the necessary step to remove a part of her body that endagered her health.

PERIOD.

What is truly sad is that this poor woman had to resort to such a desperate step that clearly endagered her own life ion order to rid herself of the fetus.

[nini]

48. I missed the part where her heatlh was at stake.

She should have delivered and gave the child up.

[novalib]

58. Do You Often Decide For Other People?

"She should have delivered and gave the child up"

Do you often make medical decisions for other people?

I don't.

I won't offer my opinion on what she "should" or "should not" have done.

It's not my decision to make.

And there is NO WAY for me to know what anguish she went through before she made this choice.

I will NOT JUDGE this woman!

[nini]

66. Yes I decide for others all the time!

:sarcasm: :eyes:

The point is she had other options since she carried the pregnancy to term. The issue is for whatever reason she allowed the pregnancy did go to term. At that point she needed to explore the adoption option if she could not or did not want to keep the child.


Obviously, her mental condition comes into play here. However, as a rule changing one's mind at 9 months and shooting the fetus to get rid of it isn't the answer either.

[LisaL]

54. I am talking about an actual murder of the fetus,

not attempted murder of the mother. Because at that stage she would not be able to get an abortion, I completely disagree with what this judge did.

[novalib]

70. The "Murder" of A Fetus??!!

What are you talking about when you say the "murder" of a fetus???!!!!!

It is only possible to murder human beings!

A FETUS is NOT a HUMAN BEING!!!

[nini]

75. Would that fetus have been viable if delivered?

????

[novalib]

81. Coulda Shoulda Woulda

I don't know.

The FACT is that it hadn't been delivered.

It was a FETUS -- NOT A HUMAN BEING!!!!

If it ain't a human being, it ain't murder!!

[slackmaster]

86. Murder does not necessarily apply only to human beings

See reply #83.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

77. A fetus becomes viable outside the womb at around 6 months.

I was born prematurely (7 months), if I was a human being at birth then that unborn baby should be, period.

[novalib]

85. Ya Gotta Be Born!

Viability has NOTHING to do with murder.

Ya gotta be born in order to be murdered.

Because only HUMAN BEINGS can be murdered.

And you become a human being on your BIRTHDAY.

When you are born!

Not before!

[slackmaster]

90. Not true in Virginia, novalib

See Virginia Code § 18.2-32.2.

[novalib]

97. Apparently, The Judge In Virginia

Decided that this woman did not commit murder.

Or at least the judge decided that she did not commit an illegal abortion.

The judge had all the facts and was able to review all of the law.

I think I agree with him

No murder here.

[slackmaster]

101. I agree with the judge too

But not with your claim that murder laws don't apply to fetuses.

[Odin2005]

99. Who died and let you get to define what "human beings" are?

You're sounding just a irrational and dogmatic as the anti-choice who obsess over 8-cell embryos by your pathetic attempts at defending unnecissary late-term abortions. When I was 1 month old I was at the same stage developmentally as a 8-moth fetus, calling that fetus not human is pure stupidity and sophistry.

[novalib]

104. "Unnecessary Late-Term Abortions"

Who died and let you get to define what late-term abortions are "unneccessary"????!!!

I never said that the fetus wasn't human.

I would have been very sill if I had something as stupid as that.

Clearly, it was human -- it was a HUMAN FETUS!!!!

If you want to believe that a 1-month old fetus is a human being, be my guest!

I think that the law in most cases is pretty clear -- ya gotta be born in order to enjoy being a human being.

[GCP]

109. "I never said the fetus wasn't human" - Oh, Really?

Viability has NOTHING to do with murder.

Ya gotta be born in order to be murdered.

Because only HUMAN BEINGS can be murdered.

And you become a human being on your BIRTHDAY.

When you are born!

Not before!

[Odin2005]

110. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about what is right and wrong.

[slackmaster]

83. Unlawful killing of a fetus is defined as murder in my state

From the California Penal Code:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law....

Your state may define it differently.

[novalib]

91. Well, It Ain't Murder In This Case.

The Law in California says that murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being or fetus.

Except, the law says, that it is not murder is the act was solicited, AIDED, ABETTED, or CONSENTED TO by the mother.

I would say that the mother in this case AIDED, ABETTED, and CONSENTED to this abortion.

No murder here.

This woman is no Scott Peterson.

[slackmaster]

92. I agree the woman in this case was not committing a murder

But your blanket statements that it has to be born in order for killing it to qualify as murder, are not correct.

[mondo joe]

98. What's the penalty for performing an abortion without a medical

license?

[novalib]

107. Precisely

The woman in this case was charged with performing an illegal abortion.

Because she was the mother, she was found not guilty.

If she had performed an illegal abortion, she most likely would have received the penalty the law requires.

But she didn't.

She CLEARLY did not MURDER her baby.

She aborted a fetus.

[Maine-ah]

106. that "fetus" was full term.

she was scheduled to have the child that day. She woke up in the beginning stages of labor.

[katamaran]

55. She didn't live in the boonies

She didn't live in the boonies, but she did live in one of the poorer parts of the city. Suffolk is a fair sized city with a decent social services system. The irony is that where she shot herself is less than half a mile from the city's department of health, and a mile from the hospital.

[omega minimo]

95. nice flamebait

"what se did was no different from using a pair of pliers to extract a tooth"

[novalib]

36. (self-delete)

Ooops.

Sorry about the double post!

[Mr_Spock]

47. Yuck

That's disgusting.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

50. This is heartbreaking.... for the baby and the mother

Did she so something wrong?

Yes, in my opinion.

Is she crazy?

Yes, in my opinion.

She needs help... something her boyfriend and family obviously didn't give her.

I feel sorry for the dead baby AND her.

[katamaran]

51. She had tried at least once before to terminate the pregnancy

According to her confession, she had been thinking about ending the pregnancy for a long time. She tried drinking a bottle of vinegar, but that didn't work. She thought about drinking bleach, falling down the stairs and punching herself in the stomach. (I know this because I have seen a copy of the confession as part of my job with the media...sorry no link to it.)

The audio of her 911 call is online here: http://www.wvec.com/news/suffolk/stories/wvec_local_101906_skinner_charges_dropped.53709cd4.html

It's pretty disturbing to listen to. I really feel sorry for her (plus I think I went to school with her sister).

[RC Quake]

57. It's clearly murder

This is pathetic...not sad. I'm sorry, but my spouse and I are 2 people that tried for 10 years to have children only to be unsuccessful. There are plenty of people wanting to adopt newborns! The mother could have been paid medical expenses and housing in most cases. There are options.

I am pro-choice, but much less tolerant of these types of cases after going through the pain of infertility. This is pathetic.

[judaspriestess]

60. ok this is just bullshit

if someone would have hit her with a car for example the baby died (its past fetus) to me, that person would have been charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter. This is murder.

This person should be put on Norplant.

THE ANTI-ABORTION CREEPS ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS. YOU ADVOCATE NOT USING BIRTH CONTROL, ABORTION IS WRONG, KEEP THE BABY ETC AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO A POOR DESPERATE UNEDUCATED PERSON WHO PROBABLY THOUGHT GIVING UP HER BABY IS UNTHINKABLE.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. It Is ABSOLUTELY Murder, And She Should Be Thrown In Friggin Prison ASAP

She's a goddamn baby killer and I'm in awe that she's free right now. :mad:

[Odin2005]

73. I'll say this is murder. *puts on flame protectant"

As far as i'm concered, killing a fetus that can survive outside the womb when the mother's life isn't threatened is murder. before the 3rd trimester I am fully pro-choice, during the 3rd trimester is totally another story.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. I Would Hope You Wouldn't Need The Suit. I'm Of Firm Logical Belief That

anyone who actually thinks this wasn't murder has all sorts of mental issues. Since it was the day she was to give birth, this baby might as well have been in the nursery. If it was, and she had put a gun to its head, would someone question if it was murder?

Someone trying to claim that the few hours and thin pieces of skin between the baby and air made the slightest damn difference in whether or not it was murder would be the epitome of friggin nuts in my opinion.

This was murder, plain and simple. I hope to hell the prosecutors find a way to lock this baby-killer up.

[RC Quake]

84. Thank you for using the term *baby*

Although, many feel fetus is appropriate until the first breath is taken...this was a baby! I've even witnessed some referring to a still born as a fetus. That's just going overboard to make a point for their views.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. No Problem. It Was A Baby Plain And Simple And The Mother Murdered It.

[Lars39]

135. Fetus is the correct medical term.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. And Baby Is The Correct Social One.

Since the majority of us aren't doctors, I'd say using baby would be perfectly fine.

[omega minimo]

93. Mental issues? obviously the mother has them

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Yes, The Murderous Mother Obviously Has Mental Issues. But I Fail To See

how that has anything to do with my post. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

137. Don't be so quick to judge

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. How Can You Possibly Laugh At A Baby Being Shot At Point Blank Range?

Pretty disgusting notion if ya ask me.

How you've found humor in this, and why you have felt the need to respond to me in such a ridiculous manner within such a serious topic, is a quite disturbing mystery.

[omega minimo]

143. so fucking pathetic

How You Manage To Draw Yourself Up and Be Alarmed About WHATEVER and So Self Righteouslllllllll..............................................

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. You've Got Some Serious Problems If You Can Find This Funny.

Seriously, you are being completely uncalled for.

The fact that you think a woman shooting herself in the stomach and murdering an innocent baby is something to not be alarmed about but something instead to be mocked for sake of personal vendetta and childishness, is a new low even for you Omega.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. Seriously. What The Fuck Are You Talking About?

Put words in whose mouths? What in the world are you even talking about omega?

I said nothing wrong in this thread. Some woman killed her fucking baby and when I express anger over it, you harrass me for no reason and absent of any context whatsoever. Nice Omega... Nice.

I'm off to bed now. This is utterly stupid and uncalled for.

[omega minimo]

87. That's not "self abortion" -- that's insanity.

[piedmont]

119. I agree

This was CLEARLY not a rational decision. This was CLEARLY not a person thinking rationally. This was another mental health care tragedy. STIGMA + inadequate access to care providers + inadequate care = a god-awful mess.

Whether you believe that the full-term fetus has no more rights than an infected tooth (as someone up-thread suggested) or that "every zygote is sacred," this ain't the case for expounding on it, imo. This just isn't abortion-- it's the awful consequences of a person not thinking rationally and not having any help.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. Actually, It's Both.

One doesn't cancel the other.

[buddhamama]

88. i agree

it is a tragic story.

i would also agree that it is murder.

[GCP]

111. An instant candidate for sterilization IMHO

If she's so desperate not to have any more kids - give her a tubal.
I'm pro-choice but this is as near as murder as you can get. :grr:

[RC Quake]

115. I'm pretty sure that she may have successfully

sterilized herself with this unbelievable act of selfishness. At least something good might come out of this.

[Maine-ah]

116. good point.

Welcome to DU!

[RC Quake]

120. Thanks!

:hi:

[piedmont]

121. Wait a sec...

"I got somebody to load the gun, because I didn't know how. I got in the car. … Sat there for a while and told the Lord that my mind was not right. I pulled the trigger. … The gun went off."


WHO THE HELL gave her the gun and loaded it for her? That's the person who should be put away for a long, long time.

[WindRavenX]

124. aren't you glad guns are so easily available?

:cry:

[piedmont]

126. Well,,,,

I do support RKBA. I do NOT support giving a loaded gun to a mentally distressed, 9 months pregnant woman who happens to be mentally distressed about that pregnancy, who also had NO prior experience with guns. What in the hell was that person thinking?

[WindRavenX]

128. Of course RTBA exists

It seems to be that that doesn't mean guns are so easily obtainable that nearly anyone can get them on a whim-- how did a 9 months pregnant woman with mental issues get a gun? :shrug:

[piedmont]

129. Exactly what I'd like to know.

I want to know more. Did she own the gun? Did the person who loaded it own it? And WHO was that person? If she did own it, when did she acquire it? This case is just a complete clusterfuck, and it makes me angry (not at her). And sad. Really really sad.

[Maine-ah]

150. oh come on

she would have found anyway she could to do this. Going with the "guns kill people" is BS.

Someone in the LBN thread on this lives in the same town, and mentioned that she had tried previously to do this. Drinking vinegar, threatening to throw herself down the stairs, threatening to drink bleach, ect.... She would have found a way regardless.

on edit:

I'm a 37 week pregnant woman, who owns two guns. I know how to use them. I'm not going to shoot my baby, or myself.

[gollygee]

125. Wow. What was she going through?

that isn't a normal situation by a long shot. Does she have some kind of mental illness? Was she in some kind of traumatic circumstance? People don't shoot themselves because they don't want a baby unless they are desperate as hell.

[omega minimo]

134. Golly Gee thank you for the third (?) post on what she went thru?

This thread is bullshit and doesn't deserve being on page one at this point

:toast:

[boolean]

131. This was murder

And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have their head checked.

[soothsayer]

132. for me, not murder. I don't think they're people 'til their first breath

[philosophie_en_rose]

141. No one shoots themselves in the stomach without a cause.

This is a really complex issue. I don't think someone should be punished for having an illness or for hurting themselves. I tend to oppose any punishment at all, even if she did it deliberately. It's her body; she can shoot if she wants to. (Though it is a sign she really needs some help).

But I can also see your point. I don't think a woman should be forced to be pregnant. But I also tend to agree that a viable fetus that emerges from a woman should be given a chance. At that point, she can have it removed (C-Section) etc. She doesn't have to be pregnant anymore.

For the most part, I highly suspect that this woman was not healthy. No one shoots themselves in the stomach for fun.

[johnaries]

142. Obviously, this is not about pro-like or pro-choice, this is about

the woman's state of mind.

she is not a criminal. she was obviously insane at the time. This woman needs an evalutaion, not a trial.

[Th1onein]

146. This is very sad.

I'm anti-abortion, but this is just crazy. This woman must have been desperate. Poor thing.

[Darth_Kitten]

153. That's pretty sick........

:(

[Jamastiene]

155. That looks like a headline we'd see if the right wingers

had their way about abortion laws.