March 29, 2006


Driver charged in I-277 crash that killed fetus (Michael O'Malley, March 29, 2006, Cleveland
Plain Dealer)

An Akron man who police say was driving drunk at high speeds has been charged with homicide in a one-car crash that paralyzed his pregnant teenage girlfriend and killed the fetus she was carrying.

All you need to know about the Death Lobby is that they're forced to oppose such charges.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2006 9:39 AM

It does kind of leave a pro-abortion Mother Against Drunk Driving in a bit of a quandry, in terms of asking for the maximum allowable punishment.

Posted by: John at March 29, 2006 9:45 AM

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If you engage a large enough group of pro-choicers in that argument, eventually you will be faced with the idea that the humanity of the fetus is determined entirely by the mother - that is, if the mother decides not to keep it, it isn't human, but if she does, it is. Some even invoke spiritual justifications - involving the moment of "inspiration," when the soul supposedly enters the body - thus, in their minds, pitting their faith against yours.

This is, of course, nothing more than an suspiciously convenient and self-serving argument. But in its own twisted way, it is consistent.

Posted by: M. Bulger at March 29, 2006 9:45 AM


She can't decide not to press charges--the state is.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 9:52 AM

Which means that if the mom is a so-called pro-choicer, she'll be willing to appear for the defense should they argue that no homicide was committed, and testify that it wasn't a baby, but a tissue mass that was a part of her.

(Then sue him in civil court for performing an abortion without her consent...)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 29, 2006 12:22 PM

If the pro-death side are arguing about ensoulment, they don't understand their own jurisprudence.

The baby-murder cases do not turn on the quality of the unborn. They come right out of the emanations from the penumbra to find a right of "privacy" which is to trump all other considerations.

True there are vacuous musings over the issue in the original Roe v. Wade Blackmun opinion, but these are not even dicta, having nothing whatsoever to do with the case. All that discussion amounted to was an attempt to demonstrate that opposition to baby-murder was a recent phenomenon, since pre-scientific thought was totally confused on embryology.

All this is why the death regime is so very fragile. Being built most literally on smoke and shadow, it may be easily dispelled.

In any event, I suggest that fetal death laws are legally apart from abortion issues--until we turn them to strike home.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 29, 2006 3:47 PM

Sometimes a penumbra becomes a tendril. And then it turns into Audrey, demanding to be fed.

At least, I think that is what Lou said.

Posted by: ratbert at March 29, 2006 10:35 PM

I love that movie.

When I get to the $ 10 million mark, I'm going to start making movies just like it.
I've already got a script, natch.

My theory is that "low budget, funny, family friendly" = $$$
The Disney Channel does exactly that. Why Hollywood isn't all over it will take a far smarter person than I to explain.

From previous movie threads, the consensus idea seems to be that Hollywood prefers prestige to profits, and just can't bring themselves to make low-budget PG cash machines - unless they're re-making an old sit-com or '70s-era movie, of course.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 29, 2006 11:58 PM