Today I’ll make my conservative and liberals readers mad

 

CNN: Wal-Mart restroom birth leads to prison — Mother who abandoned newborn convicted of murder

MACON, Georgia (AP) — A 27-year-old woman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison for leaving her newborn daughter in a Wal-Mart restroom last year.

Amy Shorter covered her face after the verdict was read Wednesday, and several relatives cried as they left the courtroom. They declined to comment.

The jury found Shorter guilty of felony murder for causing the baby’s death while committing first-degree cruelty to children. . .

This story is staggering to me on two grounds.

First, if this woman had killed her baby inside her womb (or while the baby was still partially inside of her) she would be guilty of no crime whatsoever, yet minutes later she is a murderer in the eyes of the law for abandoning that same baby.

Does this make any sense at all? I really don’t see how it does.

Secondly, does it make any sense that this woman was sentenced to life in prison for this crime? I don’t see how it does. I think there should be some sort of consequences for what she did, but life in prison? That just seems excessive, particularly given the fact this mother seemed to have committed this crime out of panic rather than volition.

Life in prison is an appropriate punishment for murderers who are likely to reoffend, but for crimes of passion and panic, the statistics say that offenders are unlikely to ever commit the crime ever again, and if this is the case then what purpose is there in throwing away a human life to life behind bars? One life has already been needlessly cast aside, I don’t see what good there is throwing away another life.

One thought on “Today I’ll make my conservative and liberals readers mad”

  1. Also on the issue of abortion in general, I’m working on a brief essay that I’m going to be adding to my campaign website (www.jmbranum.com) but I’ll give the short version now…

    The issue of abortion involves two competing and compelling interests — the right of the mother to privacy and the right of the child to life.

    Since these interests are not easily resolved, then we are left with a judgment call to make. There’s lots of ways one can sort this out, but here’s my take on it.

    Prior to viability, it would seem to me that the interests of the mother outweigh the interests of the child, in that the child cannot live independently of the mother’s body, and arguably has not developed to the extent that the child has developed its own independent existence. While I still morally am opposed to abortion even at this stage, I think from a governmental standpoint that the mother’s rights here do outweigh those of the child’s.

    However, post-viability I think the balance tips so that the rights of the mother and child are equally balanced. If the mother’s life or health is in danger, then the balance tips back to the mother’s interest being greater and abortion should be lawful, however for purely elective abortion, it would seem to me that the child’s rights would be dominant since the child can now live independently outside the mother’s womb.

    So post-viability, it would seem that if the mother’s health is not in danger, it would be preferable for either the mother to carry the child to term or to induce labor early, than to perform an abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *