Man sentenced in baby death
Sofiane Ghazi, who tried to kill his wife when she was at the late stage of a pregnancy in 2017, has been sentenced to a minimum 15 years because the baby died, although the woman survived. The word “monster” comes to mind.
JosephB 18:59 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
I agree that he’s a monster and agree with the harsh sentence, but isn’t it inconsistent for society to deny “baby” status when it comes to advocating late-term abortion rights yet, in this case, the foetus is personified as a “baby” because it was expected and wanted? Is the only thing that determines whether an unborn foetus is a clump of cells or a human “baby” the wishes of the pregnant person? How does this work? It seems there’s something in the ethics of our discourse that needs to be worked out and cleared up.
JaneyB 19:11 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
@JosephB – yeah, I wondered the same since foetuses do not have rights as far as I know and no one wants to venture into that thorny realm. In CBC’s coverage it turns out the foetus was subsequently born but succumbed as a result of injuries from the stabbings in utero. So I guess that’s the basis for their ruling.
Kate 19:12 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
I knew this would come up. That woman was 36 weeks pregnant. Women don’t get abortions at 36 weeks – even a late term abortion is not at 36 weeks. A fetus at 36 weeks can normally survive on its own, and they said this baby breathed for awhile despite the serious injuries.
Ephraim 20:21 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
Jewish law doesn’t hold that it’s alive until actually born. And even then, it’s 30 days before you would have to sit shiva.
Chris 21:10 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
>Jewish law doesn’t hold that it’s alive until actually born
A fine example of 3000 year old knowledge that’s obsolete. Even an amoeba is alive. Unborn foetuses are clearly alive. Their being alive isn’t denied by either pro- or anti-abortionists, not that I’ve ever heard.
JosephB 21:23 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
In this case the foetus was 36 weeks, but we often here expectant couples and their friends talking about the “baby” inside the belly or on the ultrasound or whatever. Some of those same people then turn around and talk about a woman’s right to choose and a foetus being a clump of cells and not human etc in a different context. So my question remains about how we work out the ethics of it all. Is a foetus a “baby” only when it’s wanted and a clump of cells when unwanted?
Kate 22:24 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
JosephB, this is not the place to split those hairs. The woman in the original story was very close to term, and the offspring she was carrying was viable outside the womb. This has nothing to do with abortion law and freedom of choice.
Chris, you’ve been beating that horse a long time. Laws exist so human decisions can be made. Jewish law says, as Ephraim reminds us, that fetal and newborn life are in a liminal area, but that we can draw a conceptual line where one is needed. That’s really quite wise and in no sense obsolete. You should stop assuming that a modern rationalist (you) has the ultimate and exclusive understanding of human existence. Older modes of belief can contain wisdom you haven’t considered.
Kevin 22:56 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
Canadian jurisprudence has the same definition of alive as Jewish law: it’s not alive until it’s born and breathing. So yes, you can get an abortion at any time. 4 years ago a Quebecer had one at 35 weeks.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-woman-who-had-late-abortion-says-she-made-the-right-decision
And I say jurisprudence because we have no law defining this: it’s all based on legal precedents.
Michael Black 22:58 on 2020-08-19 Permalink
Women can be devastated if a baby is still born, or dies shortly after birth.
And women can decide they don’t want to be pregnant.
It depends on the woman, it likely also depends on other things in the woman’s life.
There’s no contradiction.
Here, the woman seems to have made a decision, and the baby was killed.
Dhomas 03:57 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
3 of my kids were born at 37 weeks and they are happy and healthy.
A 36 week foetus is “viable”, in that it would likely survive being born at that point in the pregnancy. It would probably need some additional hospital care, as its lungs might still be developing.
The general consensus is that abortions should occur before the 20th week of pregnancy unless, as in the case mentioned by Kevin, there is some medical issue with the foetus or a risk to the mother’s life.
It’s not “law” that a foetus after 20 weeks is considered “alive”, but there are some laws that seem to point in this direction. For example, a mother who gives birth to a stillborn child after the 20 week mark is still entitled to maternity leave, though she wouldn’t get parental leave (https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-maternity-parental/special-circumstances.html).
So, to answer JosephB’s question, many people would consider the 20 week mark the magic number where the foetus would be considered a baby and alive and no longer a “clump of cells”. Late-term abortions after 20 weeks can be seen as a form of euthanasia, in order to avoid suffering.
jeather 08:47 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
I believe the reason this was prosecuted as a murder was because the fetus did survive to be born and to take a breath before dying of stab wounds.
Also, Jewish law states that a fetus/baby/whatever becomes a full person/human at birth (once the head is out, or more than half for a breech birth), not “alive” — lots of things are alive and not people.
Chris 08:49 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
>Jewish law says, as Ephraim reminds us, that fetal and newborn life are in a liminal area
He didn’t say liminal, he said ‘[not] alive until actually born’. Sounds quite definitive to me.
>You should stop assuming that a modern rationalist (you) has the ultimate and exclusive understanding of human existence.
I wasn’t making some sociological comment on the human condition. “A foetus isn’t alive until actually born” is simply a factually false statement, understandable 3000 years ago, but untenable today.
Maybe Ephraim meant something more wishy washy like “personhood”, that’d be different.
Kate 08:54 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
Chris, my point about “liminal” was in response to Ephraim’s “30 days before you would have to sit shiva” – in other words, a very new baby is understood to be fragile, and while it is a person, you wouldn’t be obliged to hold a ceremony for its death till it’s got more of a hold on life.
I think this has been a good discussion. It’s clear that this judgement has nothing to do with abortion rights. The fetus was born, and lived a very short few moments.
Chris 09:00 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
23 points for use of the word “liminal” BTW 🙂
jeather 09:26 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
Or maybe Ephraim was just using casual language and not being exactly precise about (English translations of) Jewish definitions of life vs human on this, a blog about Montreal news.
Kate 10:24 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
It’s possible, jeather. Do you think he was right about the 30-days-without-shiva point, though?
Dhomas 10:31 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
@Kate: it looks like the 30 day rule is correct:
“We do not mourn for fetuses (nefalim), and anything which does not live for 30 days, we do not mourn for it.” — Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Aveilut 1:6
“The infant, for 30 days, even including the full 30th day (if it dies), we do not mourn for it.” – Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 374:8
Taken from this site: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/stillbirth-and-neonatal-death/
I suspect that this is being contested now as infant mortality rate is much lower than when these laws were written. So, the excerpt from the site “the family and the community knew of the risks and expected a certain amount of loss” doesn’t really apply too much anymore.
jeather 10:31 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
It’s complicated, as usual there are conflicting answers, and at this point it depends a great deal on your specific rabbi. But that is (was?) custom (not law), that you did not sit shiva, that the burial was done without the parents, etc.
Ephraim 10:36 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
I was definitely being casual about language and not worrying about precision. There are four Hebrew words often used, ruach, nefesh, khai and nishama. Ruach is wind or spirit, nefesh resembles the English word “soul” or the word psyche, khai is alive and nishama is the most like “soul”. And if you look at Genesis 2:7, it uses BOTH words nefesh khayah, or living soul. So, just having a soul doesn’t mean you are alive. And incidentally the Hebrew word for animals is khaiya/khayot, so from the root of the word living. But a human actually possesses nefesh, nishama and ruach to be alive (khai). Nefesh, in particular enters the human at birth, while nishama exists before it. Plants are considered alive, but not with a soul. But animals and birds have souls (nefesh) but they don’t really talk about them having nishama as far as I remember.
Jewish law separates those at 21 weeks, after 21 weeks you bury a fetus, a still birth, a miscarriage or a child under 30 days, but you don’t sit shiva. Which is why Pidyon Haben isn’t done until day 30. Jewish law basically says that they will be included in the “Resurrection of the dead”. (Talk about your bad Zombie movies.)
Chris 18:04 on 2020-08-20 Permalink
>I was definitely being casual about language
I see. Well, all the thread comments before mine were about the exact beginnings of life, humanness, and rights, so I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to assume you were being exact in your language, but thanks for the clarifications.