As I understand it, the baby was stillborn, which means it died before it was born.okinrus said:No, I don't think so jps, at least not from a rational perspective. Ignoring the mitigating factors in this, Rowland acted in a way that would kill her babies in the future. Accepting the abortionist's belief that the fetus is not a person, it's more or less premeditated murder with the person not existing yet. An analogy would be putting poison in a newborn's food before the baby arrives. At the moment the poison is put into the food, the crime is commited. However, the crime does not come into fruition until the new born baby eats his or her food.
In any case, she didn't take actions that killed them, she refused to have a surgical procedure that might have saved them.