inignoct wrote:
] [ Total and complete bullshit. If she agrees to the surgery
] and she dies as a result, did she commit suicide? What if
] something goes wrong with the surgery and both fetuses die?
] Double homicide? Absurd. -k]

I don't think this case is remotely as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. Your basing your perspective on an abstract concept of at what point children gain rights that is based upon your perspective on abortion. Essentially you are arguing that before they are naturally born children have absolutely no legal protection and absolutely no behavior on the part of the mother or anyone else is questionable regardless of how malicious it is.

Deaths from natural birth complications are one in 10,000, whereas deaths from C-Sections are one in 2,500. Its clearly a more risky procedure, and women ought to be able to forgo it.

However, this isn't a case where a bunch of bibled up nut cases are going after someone because she refused a C-Section because she was afraid of the increased risks involved. She refused a C-Section because she didn't want a scar. "Rowland told a hospital nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies" than be scarred by the Caesarean section, which requires a surgical incision to the abdomen." Furthermore, this wasn't a case where there were questions about whether or not the baby would survive. She had obtained several different opinions from several different hospitals who clearly told her that she needed a C-section to save the life of the baby.

She literally made a pre-meditated decision that she would rather one of the children die then have a scar on her abdomen. Thats what we are talking about here. Expecting someone who would make such a choice before birth to have the absolute respect for the health and well being of the child that we require after birth is absolutely ridiculous. Something is obviously wrong here.

I think that its a bad idea to create a legal president that allows bibled up nut cases to go after any woman who chooses natural child birth in reasonable cases. I think that reacting to that possibility by proclaiming that we support any degree of maliciousness prior to childbirth is equally radical and equally unwise.

Decius wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] [ Total and complete bullshit. If she agrees to the surgery
]
] ] and she dies as a result, did she commit suicide? What if
] ] something goes wrong with the surgery and both fetuses die?
]
] ] Double homicide? Absurd. -k]
]
] I don't think this case is remotely as cut and dry as you guys
] are making it out to be. Your basing your perspective on an
] abstract concept of at what point children gain rights that is
] based upon your perspective on abortion. Essentially you are
] arguing that before they are naturally born children have
] absolutely no legal protection and absolutely no behavior on
] the part of the mother or anyone else is questionable
] regardless of how malicious it is.
]
] Deaths from natural birth complications are one in 10,000,
] whereas deaths from C-Sections are one in 2,500. Its clearly a
] more risky procedure, and women ought to be able to forgo it.
]
]
] However, this isn't a case where a bunch of bibled up nut
] cases are going after someone because she refused a C-Section
] because she was afraid of the increased risks involved. She
] refused a C-Section because she didn't want a scar. "Rowland
] told a hospital nurse that she would rather "lose one of the
] babies" than be scarred by the Caesarean section, which
] requires a surgical incision to the abdomen." Furthermore,
] this wasn't a case where there were questions about whether or
] not the baby would survive. She had obtained several different
] opinions from several different hospitals who clearly told her
] that she needed a C-section to save the life of the baby.
]
] She literally made a pre-meditated decision that she would
] rather one of the children die then have a scar on her
] abdomen. Thats what we are talking about here. Expecting
] someone who would make such a choice before birth to have the
] absolute respect for the health and well being of the child
] that we require after birth is absolutely ridiculous.
] Something is obviously wrong here.
]
] I think that its a bad idea to create a legal president that
] allows bibled up nut cases to go after any woman who chooses
] natural child birth in reasonable cases. I think that reacting
] to that possibility by proclaiming that we support any degree
] of maliciousness prior to childbirth is equally radical and
] equally unwise.

RYAN: Once again, the problems of making a judgment on one story of the incident. It has since come out that the mother had severe mental disturbances, was the child of a mentally handicapped mother, etc.... there is always more than meets the eye. A) that is why we have a fact-finding function. B) I think this is a test case that will allow your so-called "bibled up nut case" to go after a constitutionally-protected right under Casey. Unwise or not, this is not an abortion. I have a lot more to say on this, but I really don't want to get too deep into it. Too many other things to think about.

inignoct wrote:
] ] I read about Melissa Ann Rowland in the Dallas paper this
] ] morning By now, most of you probably have read or heard
] ] that she has been charged with murder for refusing to
] ] have a C-section which doctors had told her was the only
] ] way to ensure that both of the twins she was pregnant
] ] with would survive. One was stillborn. If convicted, Ms.
] ] Rowland could be sentenced to five years to life in
] ] prison. She is being held at the Salt Lake City jail.
] ]
] ]
] ] Ever since legislatures started enacting statutes that
] ] make it a crime to kill a fetus, events have conspired to
] ] get us to this point - a woman didn't want surgery, and
] ] is being charged as a murderer for refusing. Think about
] ] that for a minute - she didn't want to have surgery.
] ] She's charged with a crime.
]
] [ Total and complete bullshit. If she agrees to the surgery
] and she dies as a result, did she commit suicide? What if
] something goes wrong with the surgery and both fetuses die?
] Double homicide? Absurd. -k]

Yeah this is total bullshit, if the scar was actually the reason. Thats crap b/c now the scar is usually pretty small and in the area just above the pubic bone. So if you are concerned with someone seeing it, and they are that damn close to you, I don't think it really matters at that point!