u/Traditional-Gas6794

There's a popular murder trial going on right now, and ive just come to know about it. It seems to be a divisive issue. Plaintiff is alleged to have killed her 3 children (Lindsey clancy), but there is debate regarding if she is truly criminally liable.

I have specifically seen people suggesting she did not commit these acts. With that in mind, I looked at their proposed stipulation in April of this year. In it, DC agrees to stipulate to the killings, or the physical act, if granted a bifurcation of the trial.

Now, I dont really understand all that, but I understand that DC proposed some form of admission in exchange for a more favorable topic at issue(?), which was rejected by the court.

Ive been caught up on this, with speculation of the father being guilty in mind. I can see the cases where people are pressured or coerced into false admissions of guilt, but the fact this is a mid-trial motion makes me feel like its worth taking note of, if trying to determine DCs understanding of what occured. Is this unprecedented, assuming she is innocent?

Im sure the real story is a complex whirl of hormones and meds and poor support resulting in a mental state that arguably weakens negligence and gives way to what has occurred. But I want to understand what DC thinks in terms of her committing this act herself.

Has a mid-trial stipulation, basically admitting to the physical act of murder, ever occured in a situation where the defendant was actually innocent?

​

Abortion should be legal, the govt has no right to influence such a decision, or mandate it by law. But I believe that abortion is, nontheless, a morally ambiguous act.

If a child and an embryo were both in a burning building, and you can only save one, id save the child everytime.

If a newly developed embryo was in a building, alongside a clump of benign cancer cells or soemthing, I might not feel like saving either. But id hesitate. If it had some setup to sustain itself, and i knew this, I might feel like it should be rescued. My intuition tells me its not as strong of an impluse as saving the child, but its definitely not the same to me as saving the clump of cells. It's not a morally neutral choice.

If a embryo in some ex-eutero technology was developing in the 2nd trimester in a burning building, alongside a clump of cells, I might feel like it should be saved. I dont think id regard it as the same as the random clump of cells, or as the newly developed embryo.

I know a lot of people see a newly developed fetus as a clump of cells. And maybe it is best seen as that at first. But id argue, at every stage of development, that clump of cells is intrinsically different than a random clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Like, its on a trajectory that will grant it moral value, unlike a tumor

I dont think that embryo deserves the same treatment as a child, but i also dont think it deserves the same treatment as a clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Thsuly, abortion is morally ambiguous, and less so as it becomes later term. At least, to me.