Does this judge really believe what she is writing?

There has been alot of talk in blogosphere about the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision Hawaii vs Aiwohi. Hat tip- Once more into the breach

The court overturned the conviction of Tayesha Aiwohi in the death of her son. While pregnant, Ms. Aiwohi used methamphetamines and amphetamines. That caused her son Treyson to die two days after he was born.

Hawaii's Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the grounds that Hawaiin law didn't explicitly cover fetuses and there was no evidence legislators intended so. Even though the child died after birth, the Mom couldn't be held responsible for what she did to her baby(fetus as the court called it) because he wasn't a person.

This is the part that really strikes me-

The mere fact that the fetus would later be Treyson, another person, does not alter the conclusion.

The fetus and Treyson are not the same person. Justice Paula Nakayama you're a mother of two, how do you say that with a straight face? You've experience pregnancy and I'm sure your children were the same to you before and after birth.

I was going to give Hawaii's Supreme Court today's Knucklehead award but picked otherwise. The logic used in this case is just unfathomable to me.

Open Post- Basil's Blog, Don Surber, Choose Life, Is it Just me?