How is this different from abortion?

[Mountainmanbob]

Minnesota newborn died from intoxication after mom unexpectedly gave birth following drinking 'bender': prosecutors

A Minnesota woman was charged with manslaughter Wednesday after prosecutors say her infant died from intoxication last year after she went on a drinking “bender” while pregnant.

Rianna Marie Cameron, 29, was charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter after her newborn daughter was found unresponsive inside the family home on December 30, WCCO reported.

 

[hedrick]

Abortion requires the intent to abort. There's nothing in the story to suggest that she had that intent. It was certainly reckless, but that's a different crime, if it's a crime. (Depends upon the state.)

 

[com7fy8]

In order for it to be abortion, I would say, she would have to drink so much with the intention of killing her baby. And I think a number of drinkers might not even know that a lot of drinking could kill an unborn child. So, it might not be a good idea to even make this public, because it could put ideas into the heads of a number of people. On the other hand, it might inform certain ones so they don't kill their children by boozing.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Abortion requires the intent to abort.

So unintentional abortion is a crime, but not intentional abortion? I'm trying to think of another case where the lack of intent is a bigger crime than premeditated intent. The opposite seems to be the default - unintentional doesn't rate quite as serious as intentional, especially when the death of another human is involved.

Seems to me that if intentional abortion isn't a crime, then neither is unintentional abortion.

 

[hedrick]

So unintentional abortion is a crime, but not intentional abortion? I'm trying to think of another case where the lack of intent is a bigger crime than premeditated intent. The opposite seems to be the default - unintentional doesn't rate quite as serious as intentional, especially when the death of another human is involved.

Seems to me that if intentional abortion isn't a crime, then neither is unintentional abortion.

Huh? You seem to have added a "not" somewhere. To be guilty of something requires, both in law and Christian ethics, the intent to do it. It's not abortion if you didn't intend to abort. As far as we can tell from the story, the person named in the story didn't.

Abortion is theoretically not a crime in the US, but practically in many states it is, and many Christians consider it immoral whether it's a crime or not.

However the person named did behave recklessly. If she didn't intend to abort, that means she intended to have a child. To behave in a way that has a high risk of resulting in damage to the eventual child is reckless. The recklessness isn't in risking an unintentional abortion; abortion is legal and it's not a crime to unintentionally do something legal. (Well it would have been at an earlier stage of pregnancy.) It's in the risk of having a child with alcohol-caused damage.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So unintentional abortion is a crime, but not intentional abortion? I'm trying to think of another case where the lack of intent is a bigger crime than premeditated intent. The opposite seems to be the default - unintentional doesn't rate quite as serious as intentional, especially when the death of another human is involved.

Seems to me that if intentional abortion isn't a crime, then neither is unintentional abortion.

Intentional abortion is the only kind of abortion. If a woman kills her baby without trying to, thati s not an abortion. There is nothing else the post you quoted oculd have meant.

Obivously killing a fetus simply by drinking too much is not abortion if the mom was unaware alcohol kills unborn babies.

 

[JustRachel]

Pretty sure the point being made here is that she was charged with manslaughter of what some would call a fetus.

 

[Snoder]

Minnesota newborn died from intoxication after mom unexpectedly gave birth following drinking 'bender': prosecutors

A Minnesota woman was charged with manslaughter Wednesday after prosecutors say her infant died from intoxication last year after she went on a drinking “bender” while pregnant.

Rianna Marie Cameron, 29, was charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter after her newborn daughter was found unresponsive inside the family home on December 30, WCCO reported.

You are not allowed to harm the unborn during the third trimester, unless it is for health reasons. That is why it is illegal to choose abortion or kill the fetus by other means.

 

[Snoder]

So unintentional abortion is a crime, but not intentional abortion? I

If she got drunk and went to the doctor after giving birth to a dead fetus before the third trimester, that wouldn't be a crime.

 

[Radagast]

Huh? You seem to have added a "not" somewhere. To be guilty of something requires, both in law and Christian ethics, the intent to do it.

That turns out not to be the case. You can be guilty of a crime because of a harmful consequence of a reckless act (e.g. involuntary manslaughter) or because of a harmful consequence of some other criminal act (e.g. felony murder).

 

[margetttafischer]

Maybe if she was drunk I’m not sure tho

 

[Radagast]

Minnesota newborn died from intoxication after mom unexpectedly gave birth following drinking 'bender': prosecutors

A Minnesota woman was charged with manslaughter Wednesday after prosecutors say her infant died from intoxication last year after she went on a drinking “bender” while pregnant.

Rianna Marie Cameron, 29, was charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter after her newborn daughter was found unresponsive inside the family home on December 30, WCCO reported.

The crime seems to be this:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

609.378 NEGLECT OR ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD.
§Subdivision 1.Persons guilty of neglect or endangerment. (a)(1) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who willfully deprives a child of necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision appropriate to the child's age, when the parent, guardian, or caretaker is reasonably able to make the necessary provisions and the deprivation harms or is likely to substantially harm the child's physical, mental, or emotional health is guilty of neglect of a child and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. If the deprivation results in substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. If a parent, guardian, or caretaker responsible for the child's care in good faith selects and depends upon spiritual means or prayer for treatment or care of disease or remedial care of the child, this treatment or care is "health care," for purposes of this clause.
​

The key thing here seems to be the fact that the child was born alive, but denied essential health care. That's one count.

It sounds to me like the "bender" itself was the second count, under 609.205(1).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It isn't different except in the method. Why should this woman be charged if the mantra "it's a woman's choice" is the ultimate justification for why abortion is legal in the first place? Mind you this was probably less painful for the child in the womb than other methods of Abortion, like injecting the womb with poison and then proceeding to tear the limbs off the infant until the head is finally crushed.

Abortion activists should celebrate this woman. She did what she wanted with her body. The It's the baby's fault for being a parasite.

Don't actually believe the above, but it is consistent with the pro-abortion side of things.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If she got drunk and went to the doctor after giving birth to a dead fetus before the third trimester, that wouldn't be a crime.

If a baby is born dead before the third trimester, there is no third trimester. It is a miscarriage.

 

[Snoder]

.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Intentional abortion is the only kind of abortion. If a woman kills her baby without trying to, thati s not an abortion.

Ok, so is (or perhaps, "should") it be a crime? If so, why? I mean, if the unborn isn't human, I'm not clear on what the crime is. What if she got drunk with the intent of drinking to the point of miscarrying? Would that have made a difference?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Ok, so is (or perhaps, "should") it be a crime? If so, why? I mean, if the unborn isn't human, I'm not clear on what the crime is. What if she got drunk with the intent of drinking to the point of miscarrying? Would that have made a difference?

If she got drunk with the intent of miscarrying, yes, it is a crime.

But remember getting drunk itself is a crime, whether a person dies as a result or not.

 

[Snoder]

Ok, so is (or perhaps, "should") it be a crime? If so, why? I mean, if the unborn isn't human, I'm not clear on what the crime is. What if she got drunk with the intent of drinking to the point of miscarrying? Would that have made a difference?

It did not matter what her intentions were before the third trimester.

 

[Yekcidmij]

If she got drunk with the intent of miscarrying, yes, it is a crime.

But if she does the same thing by paying someone to do it for her, it's not? This seems obviously inconsistent.

But remember getting drunk itself is a crime, whether a person dies as a result or not.

Getting drunk is a crime? Maybe in some biblical sense, certainly not in the US though.

So drinking with the intent of miscarrying is a crime, but paying someone to inject you with physical objects or other chemicals with the intent of miscarrying isn't? Just trying to ascertain the logical consistency here.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It did not matter what her intentions were before the third trimester.

Just so I understand your position - you think that drinking to the point of miscarrying before the third trimester isn't a crime? If that's your position, I think that's more consistent. Maybe it's an unfortunate mistake, but it doesn't seem that it can be a crime if you can carry out the same activity with full intent of aborting. Mistakes seem more forgivable than deliberate intent - maybe there are legitimate examples where that's not the case though.