Mom to be Charged with Killing Unborn Infant while DUI

By James TillmanATLANTA, Georgia, May 14, 2010 ( - A Georgia woman is soon to be charged with killing her 24-week-old unborn baby in a car accident after fleeing police while driving under the influence of alcohol.According to police, Jessica Bruce refused to stop her car Wednesday…

Full article…

One of the reason I’m pro-choice. The next step are women being charged with doing something bad when they miscarry. (Like say, that woman went for a long hike, fell, and miscarried. Let’s charge her with murder!) Scary stuff.

Something similar to that happened in Iowa this year. A woman was hospitalized after falling down some stairs. While in the hospital she told a nurse that it was an intentional fall to induce a miscarriage. Charge of attempted feticide was filed against her because it was thought she was past the sixth month of pregnancy.

That charge was later dropped after it was decided she had not entered the third trimester.


This is something I don’t understand. Why does the law care about the unborn and charge the guilty with murder in cases like this but yet they could care less if the woman goes to a murder mill and has her baby brutally murdered?

Totally agree I’ve always said Andrea Yates should have never been charged for murdering her five children; if you have legalized abortion in the State of Texas.

All she did was have five late term abortions!

Andrea Yates

Probably the people who charge women for that sort of thing are looking to make abortion illegal.

The thing that scares me is that you can probably find a woman’s fault in many miscarriages. Maybe the woman didn’t eat the right food and didn’t exercise to keep her body healthy, maybe the woman exercises too much, maybe the woman drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes?

What about a pregnant woman who deliberately chooses to engage in risky behavior, such as skydiving or white water rafting and a miscarriage happens?

This kind of thinking would take away a woman’s freedom.

I’m for women’s freedom but a mother has no right to kill her baby inside or outside the womb.

Well, the kind of food a woman eats, how much she sleeps, whether she works out, whether she is stressed and so on can all affect whether she has a miscarriage.

Would you say that a pregnant woman loses her right to eat what she wants, sleep when she wants, engage in intensive sports and whatever else while she is pregnant? After all, all those things can cause a miscarriage. Would you lock pregnant women in padded rooms, control what they eat and how much, when they sleep and when they don’t to protect the babies inside?

im all for the life, liberty. and ones pursuit of happiness, as long as it does no infringe upon the rights of others

You’re talking about woman’s rights but what about the rights of the baby?

I will admit the BHO is trying to get on our plates and tell businesses what they sell i.e. happy meals, because parents are too dumb to raise their kids so big brother is going to raise them for you.

So it may come down to it’s ok for a mother to get her baby’s limps ripped out of her womb but if she buys her kid a Big Mac she maybe arrested for harming her child.

I personally find that very scary and totalitarian.

Simply another example of the magic world of pro-choice: just like if you don’t want the baby, then it’s a “blob of cells”, and you can kill it legally. If you want the baby, then hocus-pocus, abracadabra, now it’s a baby, and you can be prosecuted.

Welcome to Obama’s New America. Hope and change, wasn’t that it? Well, I don’t know about the hope part, but we’re certainly getting change, aren’t we?

After just getting over a miscarriage myself, I can assure you that the doctors told me that MOST of miscarriages occur because the the cells were developing abnormally and the amazing human body recognizes that and induces an early delivery. I think that when a person decides to have sex, they are opening themselves up the option of carrying a child, thus taking on the responsibility of taking care of themselves in order to deliver a healthy child. (just another reason why sex is not just for pleasure) I find this article to be a sad proof of the problem with pro-choice people. When a mother and unborn child die in a car accident or by some other disaster, not caused by the mother, the papers report that 2 people perished. But any one can walk into an abortion clinic and “get rid” of the child within…our world is a crazy place for sure.

I don’t know what it has to do with Obama, considering Obama is pro-choice, and it was not his choice to charge the mother who lost her pregnancy in a car accident with murder.

A pro-life prosecutor could argue that a woman who for instance is overweight, who eats poorly, who doesn’t sleep well, and for example who drinks alcohol caused a miscarriage. And a pro-life jury could agree and charge her with murder.

It is already kind of what’s happening here, where a woman drank and was in an accident, and now is being charged with killing the unborn baby. Yes a drunk driver is more obviously at fault than an overweight woman who eats McDonald’s every day, but it’s only a matter of degree, not principle.

I would think though, that if the pregnancy is outside of the time limits for an abortion and the child can reasonably survive outside of the mother’s womb, then this would be criminal infanticide no?

What rights of the baby? Evaluating through the secular looking glass, a baby is only granted rights if the child is past the allotted time for abortion or the parents wanted the pregnancy. I’m not saying I agree with it, but I am saying that rights do not begin at conception.

The things which constitute child endangerment can at times be ludicrous. That’s not to say it isn’t a bad idea to give your kids junk food all the time :stuck_out_tongue: Maybe a license should be given to a parent before they are able to raise the child :slight_smile:

Personally I think a woman should be able to do whatever she pleases with her body regardless of whether or not she is pregnant.

Where I live there are no time limits or restrictions on abortions either.

Telling women that they may not go on long hikes, or skydive, or eat junk food, or drink wile pregnant is something a totalitarian state would do.

This type of situation is not at all exclusive to pregnancies. All of us behave in ways that can gravely affect others, even kill them, without their consent. Economists call these “externalities.” One who chooses to smoke imposes second-hand smoke on those around them without their consent. People who use gasoline with high ethanol content may drive up the price of corn and cause poor people in some parts of the world to starve. The state has to judge, when making laws, how much responsibility the individual has with regard to the externalities of his actions. While there is no clear line, some type of decision can still be made; while we are all free to use whatever type of gasoline is sold, some states and cities pass laws banning smoking in public places, given that second-hand smoking clearly and directly harms and kills people.

You seem to think that the logical conclusion of the pro-life position is basically the totalitarian treatment of pregnant women. In all likelihood, if abortion should ever become illegal (though I am fairly certain it never will be), similar standards would apply to the mother’s influence on the fetus as those applied to, say, a mother’s influence on her child. She could still eat more or less what she want, save for bleach or something not meant for consumption, just as mothers can feed their children almost whatever they want (unfortunately, in my opinion). If the mother fell down the stairs and killed the fetus, it would be similar to if one got into a car accident that killed a passenger, but to no fault of his own. If, however, the driver were drunk (like the mother in this case), then he might be charged with criminally negligent homicide. Of course, I have no idea why “feticide” is illegal at all in this country. Clearly an inconsistency in the law.

If abortion should be made illegal, the rights of pregnant women would probably remain more or less the same (of course, they would no longer have the right to get abortions), perhaps to the disappointment of some of the more melodramatic pro-choicers who expect the rise of Oceania with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Why you Atheists come on to a Catholic forum to argue I’ll never understand.

You’re talking about secular law I’m talking about Gods law and we will never agree because Atheists are closed minded about God.

I’ve heard this devils talk for years but I have witnessed Atheists talk all that stuff until they get into a firefight—then they pray maybe not to Jesus but they pray for to a higher power.

The unborn baby has a right to life—I will pray for you.

May the Lord be with you—Stan.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit