Torn

I'm not sure what to make of the woman in Utah who lost a baby due to her not having a cesarean section. I feel it is horrible that a baby should have died over something so relative simple, and understand why they charged her with murder. The charge, though, is also worrisome.

I've heard some liberal pundits asking what would have been done if she had refused the surgery on 'religious' issues. Would she still have been charged? I feel that's a red herring, though. A better question is where is the line drawn as it comes to pre-natal care. If a woman drinks during pregnancy, and the baby is stillborn or disabled, can she be charged? What if she refuses pre-natal care with the same results?

On the other side, and more ridiculous, I've heard people suggest that the doctors should be charged. I can't even begin to understand that.

This issue, for me, is similar to my view on the Death penalty. From what I know of this case, it seems to me a murder charge is reasonable, assuming all the 'news' is fact.(There have been later reports suggesting she suffers from some mental problems, which obviously would change things) Though, I still don't think it's a good idea for the state to start prosecuting murder charges based off of decisions made during pregnancy, because the line can get blurry very easily.

In the same way, I think the Sniper Case, or the Oklahoma bombing case, both a re clear cut Examples of crimes deserving of the death penalty. But, I still think there are too many mistakes made in Death penalty cases to warrant a death penalty.

Neither of these cases are the problems with the respective laws/approaches. It's the ones that aren't so clear cut that become problematic.