

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Essay analysing Martina Greywind's case, and the ethical implications on it.
Typology: Essays (university)
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Reviewing the case of Martina Greywind. “Did Greywind have a real choice or was she coerced?” “Do laws against reckless endangerment of a fetus promote abortion?” Back in 1992, Martina Greywind was a 28-year-old, pregnant homeless American woman from Fargo, North Dakota. She was arrested on February 7, 1992, due to inhaling paint fumes, endangering the unborn child. Without a lawyer on her side, she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months at a state prison farm. A group called the Lambs of Christ, which “focus on the rescue of unborn children”, sent over a spokesperson of them, with the intention to convince Greywind of having the baby, promising her food, medical care and at least $10, and if she didn’t want to take care of the baby, 5 families willing to adopt. In the end, despite all help offered, she still went on with the abortion and didn’t have the baby, all charges for putting the unborn child in danger were taken away and she kept with her addiction to inhaling paint fumes. I see this as a case of selfishness by the main character in this story, Greywind, and I would like to analyze why, despite considering this situation very particular and hard, I see it this way. This is a very specific case and situation, where we have a pregnant, homeless woman, who, according to Gina Kolata (1992): “Her six children were previously taken away from her by the state.”, due to her addiction to paint fumes and irresponsibility with the children. She has a record, regarding her addiction, and the fact that she was pregnant, gave the state the option to charge her with reckless endangerment to a fetus. She had two options, to stop inhaling paint fumes and not endanger the unborn child, while having the baby, which would bring her benefits through the Lambs of Christ, which were very willing to help her in her case, or to abort the child, forget about everything that happened and still consume the paint fumes. Ms. Greywind was a very mentally unstable person, according
to the New York Times, Mr. Maxson (1992), which was The Lambs’ Spokesperson, said: “She is a woman of great ambivalence”, after he explained how she’d tell the Lambs that she was not intending to have an abortion, while telling the abortion clinic that she, in fact, did wanted to abort. Almost 30 years after this happened, there’s still people debating whether it was her decision to abort, or if she was coerced. The pressure that she had, after being in this situation, would definitely influence her final decision, the fact that she had charges on her and a very clear addiction to inhaling fumes, was an important factor in her decision. Despite the big amounts of help that was offered to her, she decided that it was just easier to get this situation over with, from the root, which was the baby, I consider that she just wanted to end this all, and that if she had the baby, even if she didn’t take care of it, this situation would never be over. Addictions are not easy to overcome, and the fact that she wouldn’t be able to inhale the fumes (which she shouldn’t do regardless of the situation, considering how bad it is for anyone’s system), was, in my opinion, a key and more important factor in this case. Lucid Thomas (2020) says: “The Lambs of Christ intended to sue North Dakota, saying the state pressured Greywind to get the abortion in order to have charges dropped, but that argument eventually burned itself out as well.”. This point also proves that laws against reckless endangerment of a fetus don’t promote abortion. The final decision was of Ms. Greywind. I don’t consider that the State was promoting abortion with its laws, it was just the “easier” decision for Greywind. I see this as an ethically selfish and irresponsible decision more than anything, despite it being a very serious case, where it’s difficult to make a proper decision.