Englishlush,

I think this issue may be better described in terms of philosophy rather than avarice.

In the U.S. the issue of whether an individual may own another was settled de facto in 1865, and de jury with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. A woman does not own her babies. Her relationship to them is as a steward, to whose decisions deference is naturally given, except in exceptional circumstances.

Just as the State may exercise the right of eminent domain to take private property, following compensation, for public use, so too it may use its powers of coercion to prevent its citizens from endangering the life of others, or punish them after the fact for doing so. Irresponsible behavior constitutes grounds for action. Drug abuse is an obvious candidate. Engaging in violent sports while knowingly pregnant (and yes, Rugby would qualify) would also be highly suspect. The life endangered in this instance was that of the unborn babies. The accused sought and received expert advice on three occasions. She was aware of what might come to pass as a result of her decision. She willfully ignored the advice she received.

This young woman behaved in a fashion that was grossly irresponsible and morally reprehensible. Of that there can be no question. The correct question is whether or not the State has the authority to bring criminal charges against her for behaving so. The Assistant State’s attorneys receive an annual salary; they are not paid by the conviction.

Many people shy away from philosophical questions, grasping at what seems to offer an easy answer: the people who can make money from an event are involved only because they are out to “make big bucks”. Attorneys who defend cases like this one are NOT doing it for the money. If you want to make money by practicing law in the U.S., you prosecute and defend business lawsuits. Hell, the unlucky attorney who gets stuck with this turkey may actually be doing it Pro Bono.

No, the real questions here are the hard ones; the questions raised at the bottom of your first post by both the law professor and you, and in your second post. Where does the purview of the individual stop and that of the state start? Does – in principle – the foetus have all the rights of a citizen? If not, does the foetus have enough rights of a citizen to justify constraining (or in this instance punishing) the behavior of a full citizen – the mother. If so, well money be damned; her willful behavior killed someone! If the mother’s relationship with the State trumps that of the unborn, then money be damned; the state should stay out of her life! These are question which need deliberation, not sound bites.

A liberal society invests more trust in the individual than does an authoritarian one. The U.S. has traditionally been listed among the more liberal societies, due in large part to the authority of Federal government being constrained by that of the member States. I, for one, hope it can remain a liberal society, but the history of the last 60 years or so indicates otherwise. The responsibilities of the government, both State and Federal, have expanded many times over in that period, and the inevitable assertion of authority over those responsibilities has made government more intrusive in the lives of its citizens than in the past.

__________________
Eudaimonia