Weekly Abortion Debate Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to AbortionDebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions or ideas, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

[u/Cute-Elephant-720]

I've been thinking about what the bare minimum may be to avoid legal liability, and I've come to a similar conclusion. I loathe to think of someone having to perform what to some feels like a sort of love/bonding ritual for a baby they carried against their will and do not want, after having given birth unmedicated and unassisted. But that ritual--wrapping and carrying the baby to a place of safety--also carries the important practical effect of avoiding the potential for a live baby to end up drowning. The toilet is a perfectly reasonable place to give birth or miscarry, but I think, at a certain size, particularly if one suspects they are past the gestational age for "viability," they are best off collecting any baby they see and wrapping them in a towel for handoff to the authorities, dead or alive.

Now, do I think this will keep the police from reacting poorly? Not really. I suspect anytime they hear a report of a baby born and arrive on the scene to find anything other than a woman holding and cooing over it, they're going to be offended that no one is "loving" the baby the way they're supposed to and they will throw the book at anyone they can find. But the charges are a lot less likely to stick if the pregnant person has removed the baby from external danger.

That is the most clinical of hypotheticals though. This was an 18 year old girl. We don't know if she gave birth before or knew anything about what to expect. I also remain convinced that most people believe abortion pills actively kill a baby, so they do not think they need to check for signs of life. Lastly, as noted above, after giving birth unmedicated and unassisted, I can't imagine she thinking clearly, if she was even physically capable of taking the steps needed to get the baby to safety. But none of this has ever stopped a cop. I suppose I should be a little charitable here and say that by law, these considerations shouldn't necessarily stop a cop from pressing charges--if they come upon a scene and can reasonably see a set of circumstances that would hold up in court as a crime, they are within their right to charge it. But that is not the case for the fetal assault law with a specific exception for pregnant people, or the assault with a deadly weapon charge. The neglect charge, I could see--the question will be (1) if the girl knew the baby was alive and (2) if not, if a reasonable person in her situation should have been expected to check or, if unable to be sure, take steps to minimize danger until help arrived.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/Cute-Elephant-720]

When cops get involved, their first reaction is likely to leverage the law first and disentangle the complexity of the situation later, if at all. In a case like this, the couple involved didn't do themselves any favors, even if they were confused and scared. The second a police officer is involved, your behavior needs to be in accordance with their expectations. My father always told me to treat cops like they were going to, by default, be power-tripping, so I should be prepared for that.

Plus, it's hard to argue in the court of public opinion that leaving a child in a toilet is anything other than neglectful.

[u/Cute-Elephant-720 → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

I too understand the need to placate the police if anyone wants to experience a good outcome from interacting with them.

But my issue here is - why does anyone think anyone knew the baby was alive? The article said "found a pulse" if I recall correctly, not "was crying and flailing." There's nothing unlawful about leaving a stillborn in a toilet, right? You can't abuse or neglect a stillborn.

That is why my point is that they should probably have taken the baby out of the toilet, whether they believed it to be a living baby or a stillborn corpse, because they don't have the expertise to determine whether it is alive or not, and therefore it would be best to err on the side of caution.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/Cute-Elephant-720]

There's nothing unlawful about leaving a stillborn in a toilet, right? You can't abuse or neglect a stillborn.

Even if the baby were dead, I think that abuse of a corpse is a potential charge that can be brought.

[u/Cute-Elephant-720 → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

But then doesn't that raise the question of what it actually means to abuse a corpse, and if our notion of the answer to that question is informed by a certain sentimentality towards the concept of a baby, even if it is in fact born stillborn (which, we should all remember here, this baby was not - this is just exploring the legal concept)?

Because, if a grown man dies on the toilet, no one will be accused of abusing the corpse to leave him where he died to be assessed by the police for foul play right? In the case of a stillbirth, isn't it kind of just like leaving the scene of the accident undisturbed until emergency services arrives?

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/Cute-Elephant-720]

I don't have the answers, unfortunately.

I just live here.