Baseball bat abortion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

MaxFisher

War Child
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
776
Location
Minneapolis
Why is the boy the only one being charged? The girl went along with it as a willing participant. And while were at it...why is this boy being charged at all? Abortion is legal last time I checked.



RICHMOND TOWNSHIP - Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith said his hands were tied when it came time to decide whom to charge in the baseball bat beating death of a fetus being carried by a teenage girl.

He decided Tuesday to do the only thing one state statute allowed: charge the boyfriend who wielded the bat, hitting his girlfriend in the stomach repeatedly over a two-week period, but let the girl off the hook, uncharged.

The Richmond Township boy, 16, who may be arraigned as early as today in Macomb County Juvenile Court, is at home with his parents. He was charged as a juvenile with intentional conduct against a pregnancy or stillbirth, which is a felony. If convicted, he could remain in custody until age 21.

But the girl, also from Richmond - who was a willing participant in the induced abortion, law enforcement officials say - cannot be charged under that law because it specifically excludes the mother from criminal liability.

In part because it still was legal to abort the fetus, the decision renewed debate over the protection of fetuses and the fairness of charging just one of two juveniles who allegedly agreed to kill their unborn child.

Although Smith called the case "shocking and reprehensible," he added, "we are bound by the law. We don't have the option of charging (the girl)."

Smith said if the 6-month-old fetus had been viable, the boy would have been charged with manslaughter of a quick-born child, a 15-year felony.

The girl could have then also received the same charge for aiding and abetting.

Miranda Massie, a Detroit civil rights attorney, believes neither teen should be charged. "My heart went out to these poor kids," Massie said. "I believe it is a terrible mistake to be charged at all. This is a tremendous waste of public resources.

"What is Macomb County going to gain by criminal charges?"

She contacted the family of the boy to represent him. She believes that neither teen deserves to be charged.

Smith charged the boy under a state law passed in 1999 - called the "Prenatal Protection Act" - that states only the person assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage is criminally liable. The pregnant woman, no matter how complicit in the termination, is not.

If that provision had not been written into the statute, it would have clashed with the federal law that allows abortions under the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S Supreme Court decision, said Pam Sherstad, spokeswoman for Right to Life of Michigan, which worked to pass the 1999 state law.

"Abortion is obviously legal in the United States," Sherstad said, "and you can't have a state law that interferes with federal law. The Prenatal Protection Act was designed to protect pregnant women who are assaulted by someone resulting in the death of their unborn child. This is obviously a unique case."

Legally, the baby could have been aborted. Because the girl was a minor, she would have needed a judge's or parental permission to obtain an abortion.

Smith said he waited until final toxicology reports on the fetus were completed by the medical examiner to determine what charges could be brought against the 16-year-old boy. The prosecutor declined to identify the youth because because he is charged as a juvenile.

Arthur Caplan, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the girl should be charged with planning, plotting or conspiring to murder.

"But it's tough to do, because the law takes a different view of developing potential life than it does of actual life," Caplan said. "If the boy was charged with murder she probably would be facing charges, too.

"But being involved in causing a miscarriage is not as severe as murder," Caplan said. "Ethically, you could argue that this seems wrong, but the law draws a sharp distinction between killing your child and a fetus that's not yet viable. That may strike some pro-life people and conservatives as wrong, but that's the way the law is now."

Sherstad said the case illustrates how "the sanctity of life is not valued in our culture. It's sad that human life can be discarded this way. There's no value on the life of an unborn child, which makes it easier for something like this to happen."

Lori Lamerand, vice president of the Planned Parenthood Mid-Michigan Alliance, said pregnant teens have safer options available than terminating a pregnancy without a doctor.

"It's always tragic when people resort to such drastic measures, when there are appropriate, safe medical measures are available," Lamerand said.

Both the boy and his girlfriend have returned to classes at Armada High School, said Arnold Kummerow, superintendent of Armada Area Schools.

Law enforcement officials were first made aware of the incident in mid-November, when the girl spoke about the series of events that led to the miscarriage while at a high school leadership conference in the Upper Peninsula. The adult facilitator of the conference contacted the Michigan State Police. Detectives from the state police Richmond Post investigated the claim, and went to the boyfriend's home, where they found the buried fetus.

An autopsy was consistent with initial reports from the Michigan State Police that the miscarriage was caused by the girl's boyfriend repeatedly striking her with a 22-inch souvenir baseball bat over a two-week period, Smith said.

The parents of the teens were not aware of the pregnancy or the decision to abort it, investigators said.

Police believe the fetus was aborted in early October, then buried in the back yard of the boyfriend's home with the help of his mother.

The fetus died of premature birth associated with trauma to the mother, according to chief Macomb County Medical Examiner Dr. Daniel Spitz.

The fetus could not have survived outside the womb at the time of miscarriage, he ruled.
 
Last edited:
what publication is this article from?

aside from being a really gross situation, this touches on so, so, so many of the issues surrounding abortion.

going to sit back and see how this thread develops ...
 
It certainly was a sick, horrible thing to do.

However, if this girl had had her fetus aborted in a clinic, then it would have been a noble expression of her rights.

Can someone who is pro-abortion please explain to me why there is a difference.
 
I agree this is sick but I also feel this happened because of the abortion law requiring the girl to get permission from the court and her parents. If this law was not in place, she could have gone to medical doctor and had the abortion. Those laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get abortions which can bring harm to them and others.
Teens are going to have sex and those stupid abortion laws are not going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Sheltie,

Using your line of reasoning then.....

Drug laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get drugs which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drugs and stupid drug laws are not going to change that.

Would you agree?
 
MaxFisher said:

However, if this girl had had her fetus aborted in a clinic, then it would have been a noble expression of her rights.


This statement is a good illustration of why these kinds of threads get out of hand. Wait until someone actually calls getting an abortion "a noble expression" before using this kind of ridiculous strawman just to bait pro-choicers here.
 
Someone please employ a little empathy. Who, in their right mind would allow themselves to be struck with a baseball bat over a two week period?

Can you imagine the incredible fear of the consequences that would take you to do this sort of thing?

I am pro choice but I also believe that abortion has its limits. After 4 months of conception abortion should be illegal because the fetus is now formed and will sustain pain.

Before those 4 months, however, allow it. For the love of God, have some empathy. :tsk:
 
strannix said:


This statement is a good illustration of why these kinds of threads get out of hand. Wait until someone actually calls getting an abortion "a noble expression" before using this kind of ridiculous strawman just to bait pro-choicers here.


:up:

nicely said. i had typed a response, then deleted it. yours was much better than one i could have come up with.
 
maybe Max's use of the phrase "noble expression" wasn't well placed...but, Max has a strong point. If it was done in a clinic it would have been seen as a woman doing as she wishes with her body and it would be protected under the laws of this country.

There are so many contradictions in this country.....

it's against the law to kill somebody, unless it's being carried out by the state in the form of a death penalty...

abortion is a legally protected right that women have...unless it is carried out in a manner like in the story above....

it's all just insanity
 
MaxFisher said:

However, if this girl had had her fetus aborted in a clinic, then it would have been a noble expression of her rights.

Can someone who is pro-abortion please explain to me why there is a difference.

I was wondering when the agenda was coming out.:| If you can't see the difference then obviously a discussion is useless.
MaxFisher said:

Sheltie,

Using your line of reasoning then.....

Drug laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get drugs which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drugs and stupid drug laws are not going to change that.

Would you agree?
You are comparing something that's legal with something that's illegal, it's a ridiculous analogy.
 
I won't even comment on anything else, but I also find it tragic that they couldn't confide in their parents. I'm assuming they couldn't

Oh, I just re-read it, the part about his mother helping to bury the baby. Good Lord..
 
Last edited:
LoveTown said:
If it was done in a clinic it would have been seen as a woman doing as she wishes with her body and it would be protected under the laws of this country.


Well, this is true of any medical procedure, though. Say I need open heart surgery, but don't have insurance. I don't want have money to deal with the medical bills so I get my neighbor to agree to do it for free. He has no medical training, so I die. My neighbor's going right to prison. Hell, even if I somehow live, he's probably going to prison.

But if I get it done in a clinic, it's protected by the laws of this country, even if I die anyway. For better or for worse, an abortion is a medical procedure, and it's legal for a woman to have one. But like any medical procedure that I know of, it's illegal to perform with a baseball bat by someone who isn't a doctor. So I really don't see a contradiction - at least not a legal one.
 
Last edited:
BonoVox,

It's not fair to say, "If you can't see the difference then obviously a discussion is useless." Discussion is about sharing different points of view and weighing their validity. Instead of stating why there is a difference, you simply dismissed any further discusion.

I think my drugs analogy holds up but I'll present another one just for you...
Alcohol laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get alcohol which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drink and stupid alcohol laws are not going to change that.
 
MaxFisher said:
BonoVox,

It's not fair to say, "If you can't see the difference then obviously a discussion is useless." Discussion is about sharing different points of view and weighing their validity. Instead of stating why there is a difference, you simply dismissed any further discusion.

My point was that your angle to this story was very apparant from the beginning. When one sees no difference in beating someone with a baseball bat(something that is illegal in anyone's book) and going into a doctors office for a procedure then I'm sorry but all logic is gone and I see no point in having a discussion. You carry the burden of proof. You have to somehow prove that beating someone with a bat over a two week period is somehow the same as going to a clinic under the watchful umbrella of a professional staff. Until you do that then yes there is no point in a discussion.
MaxFisher said:

I think my drugs analogy holds up but I'll present another one just for you...
Alcohol laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get alcohol which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drink and stupid alcohol laws are not going to change that.

No it doesn't because in order for an analogy to work it must compare to similar circumstances. Ones that's illegal for and one that is legal is not an analogy.

Now your alcohol analogy works somewhat. But I would argue that until there are laws against having sex at a certain age then Sheltie's argument stands. I'm not saying that I approve of teens having sex getting pregnant and getting abortions, but if there isn't any law against them having sex without parents consent then why a law for abortions without consent?
 
MaxFisher said:


I think my drugs analogy holds up but I'll present another one just for you...
Alcohol laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get alcohol which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drink and stupid alcohol laws are not going to change that.


i know this was for BVS, but i'd like a crack at it.

yes, i think alcohol laws surrounding teens are hypocritical. kids can have sex, get married, and get their limbs blown off in Iraq when they're 18 but not drink alcohol. it's because we both glorify alcohol too our teenagers in order to sell products, and then turn around and tell them "don't touch!" that encourages the sneaky use and abuse of alcohol, that causes kids to sneak around, drink heavily in the basement, and often make bad decisions. if we were to do two things, one cultural one legal, then we'd go a long ways towards protecting our teenagers and helping them make good choices instead of presenting them with a contradictory, schizophrenic message that says "Drink! But Don't! We can! We have fun! But you can't! But you'd have fun if you did!" (the same thing goes for sex).

1. lower the drinking age to 19
2. change our attitudes towards drinking and focus on responsible consumption of alcohol and (dare i say it ... you jumped all over me a while ago for suggesting that sex is pleasurable) valuing things like wine and beer as cultural products and compliments to fine eating -- what steak isn't made better with a full-bodied, ass-kicking red wine? let's focus on enjoying alcohol the way our European friends do, rather than associating it with getting shitty at a Packers game.

and this is easily translatable to sex/sex ed/abortion, but i'll leave that alone for now.
 
Last edited:
MaxFisher said:
Sheltie,

Using your line of reasoning then.....

Drug laws are bad because the laws force teens to engage in illegal practices to get drugs which can bring harm to them and others. Teens are going to do drugs and stupid drug laws are not going to change that.

Would you agree?
You are not comparing apples to apples. Teens having sex and getting pregnet is not the same as using drugs.
Making a choice to engage in using drugs is a whole different matter and has nothing to do with abortion laws.
A teen pregnancy can be devastating.
I am not saying I agree with teens having sex nor do I agree with them doing drugs. But its not the same.
 
Max Fisher, do you see no difference in a medical practioner carrying out an abortion in a sterile, clean and safe environment and a young boy assaulting a pregnant girl to cause a miscarriage?

Do American laws cover these 2 examples the same way? It seems not, and I ask this genuinely. Common bloody sense should indicate that this is far different from the much debated issue of abortion in it's own right, and while this is an extreme in the entire abortion debate it can't be viewed as legal. Surely. Jesus.

I'm trying to follow the other view's line of reasoning here and I can see how the result is the same tragic one. But it's the method if anything surely, which is so abhorrent.
 
Forgot to add I fall more into the 'life' camp than the 'choice' camp. Which might make my reply void as you wanted pro choice. Even though you said pro abortion, I'd assume you realise that very few, and infact probably no one in here is actually all gung-ho for abortion. It's the choice that gets argued for. None of us have to understand it, but we should try and respect it at least.
 
paxetaurora said:
Oh, good, an abortion thread.

:: resigns self to having no life for the next few days ::

I'm sorry -- that made me laugh.

I think I'm just gonna stay out of it this time...at least for now. ;)

Should I start a "Canada's going to Hell cause it allows gay marriage and has more lenient marajuana laws" thread to divert discussion? :D
 
Last edited:
It's bad enough that people abuse the legality of abortion, but when baseball bats are used, it's just sickening. What kind of crack do you have to be on to have someone beat you and your baby with a baseball bat? This was not an accidental miscarriage. This was a plot to kill.

Sorry for staying on topic, but this is news, and I don't see why we should avoid a discussion, especially when it's centered on the topic.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
It's bad enough that people abuse the legality of abortion, but when baseball bats are used, it's just sickening.
What? This is assault, this has nothing to do with the abusing of legal abortion.

Macfistowannabe said:
What kind of crack do you have to be on to have someone beat you and your baby with a baseball bat? This was not an accidental miscarriage. This was a plot to kill.

[/B]
Who's claiming accidental miscarriage?
:huh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom