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.

RE: Eschaton - The War on Women