A truly disgusting situation - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

denim · 04-08-2004, 04:06 AM

I didn't say that. I said she can't be held on more than the drug charges.

raeanna74 · 04-08-2004, 05:14 AM

I've been through a C-section. If the baby is full term or almost full term and about to die why would she even want a dead rotting fetus inside her? At least they can save the baby and she doesn't have to go through labor just to deliver a corpse. A C-section can be painful but seriously it's not that big of a deal. I was up and walking through the grocery store within 3 days of STARTING labor. I went through 21 hours of labor before having the c-section and still recovered almost as fast as a normal delivery. My stitches were out in 2 days and I have nearly no scar left only 4 years later. What's the big deal?

skysooner · 04-08-2004, 06:35 AM

She showed reckless endangerment for the health of her children. Ultimately this is what she was convicted of.
I believe in the right of a woman to choose whether she carries a child or not, but once that decision is made, she should have showed more responsibility.

denim · 05-29-2004, 09:41 PM

A new situation, with an update for the original posting: link

Quote:

From CNN.com
Court cases revive childbirth rights debate

Saturday, May 29, 2004 Posted: 7:10 AM EDT (1110 GMT)

Amber Marlowe went to a second hospital to deliver her daughter after the first insisted she have a Caesarean section.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Amber Marlowe was a seasoned pro at delivering big babies -- her first six each weighed close to 12 pounds. So when she went into labor with her seventh last winter, she brushed off doctors who told her the 11-pound, 9-ounce girl could be delivered only by Caesarean section.

But the medical staff at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital wouldn't budge, not even with her track record. "All my others, I've done naturally," Marlowe recalled telling her physicians. "I know I can do it."

So Marlowe checked herself out and went looking for a new doctor.

While she was on her search, Wilkes-Barre General's lawyers rushed to court to get legal guardianship of her unborn child, giving the hospital the ability to force Marlowe into surgery if she returned.

The case is one of several in recent months that have revived a debate about whether mothers have an absolute right to choose when, where and how they give birth -- even if the health of their baby is at stake.

A spokesman for the American Hospital Association wasn't immediately sure whether the organization has ever taken a position on the issue.

Some groups representing doctors, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, have said that physicians should refrain from doing procedures unwanted by pregnant woman, and that use of the courts to resolve conflicts is almost never warranted.

Marlowe ended up at another hospital, where she had a quick, natural birth she described as "a piece of cake." She didn't know about the first hospital's action until her husband was told by a reporter.

"They don't know me from anything, and they're making decisions about my body?" she said. "It was terrifying."

Officials with Wilkes-Barre General did not return calls seeking comment.

Recent cases

In Salt Lake City, Utah, an acknowledged cocaine addict with a history of mental health problems resisted having the operation for about two weeks before acquiescing. One of the twins she was carrying died during the delay. The mother was charged with capital murder but ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of child endangerment and was sentenced to probation.

Last month, prosecutors in Pittsburgh charged an unlicensed midwife with involuntary manslaughter for failing to take a woman to the hospital when her baby began to be delivered feet-first. The child died two days later. The midwife said she had been trying to honor the mother's wishes to have the baby at home.

And in Rochester, New York, a judge in late March ordered a homeless woman who had lost custody of several neglected children not to get pregnant again without court approval.

Some women's advocates said the cases illustrate a newfound willingness by legal officials to interfere with women's choices about their pregnancies.

"My impression is that we have a political culture right now that falsely pits fetal rights against women's rights, and that you are seeing a kind of snowballing effect," said Lynn Paltrow, of the New York-based group National Advocates for Pregnant Women. "We're at the point now where we're talking about arresting pregnant women for making choices about their own bodies, and that's not right."

Legal experts and medical ethicists said attempts to prosecute women for pregnancy choices, or force them to undergo certain procedures for the benefit of their children, may be on shaky ground.

"There are 50 years of case law and bioethical writings that say that competent people can refuse care, and that includes pregnant women as well," said Art Caplan, chairman of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

In one influential case, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled in 1990 that a judge was wrong to have granted a hospital permission to force a pregnant cancer patient to undergo a Caesarean in an attempt to save the life of her child. The mother and baby died within two days of the operation.

Doctors' opinions on forced care for pregnant mothers have changed, too.

A 2002 survey by researchers at the University of Chicago found only 4 percent of directors of maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs believed pregnant women should be required to undergo potentially lifesaving treatment for the sake of their fetuses, down from 47 percent in 1987.

Dr. Michael Grodin, director of Medical Ethics at the Boston University School of Medicine, said doctors should seek court intervention when a mother refuses care only if the patient is mentally ill.

"Women have a right to refuse treatment. Women have a right to control their bodies. It is a dangerous slope. What's next? If someone doesn't seek prenatal care, what are we going to do, lock them up?"

The woman who went to a different hospital's a smart one, clearly. I'd counter sue the original hospital for their behavoir!

soccerchamp76 · 05-29-2004, 10:27 PM

I have a major problem with a 'fetus' being referred to as a "theoretical person." That in itself is absolute BS. So, after nine months of growing, this "theoretical person" in a matter of minutes, suddenly becomes a person with full legal rights???

denim · 05-30-2004, 07:33 AM

At 18, a child becomes an adult. What's the difference here?

soccerchamp76 · 05-30-2004, 12:23 PM

There is a difference from becoming a minor-adult and from clump of cells-complete baby with rights. Whole different ballgame there.......let's use the cliche of 'comparing apples and oranges' here.

denim · 05-30-2004, 01:09 PM

That's not my point. My point is that, legally, there's no real difference between the two "changes". One happens at the same speed as the other, and just as arbitrarily.

hulk · 05-31-2004, 06:37 AM

The reasoning behind that is by 18 the person is well and truly an adult. Or, at least, is supposed to be. It's the same deal with unborn babies.

denim · 05-31-2004, 09:48 AM

Yes, as soon as they're born, they're well and truly babies. Until then, it's up in the air. I'd actually say it remains up in the air for a week or so after birth, but I'm flexible.

soccerchamp76 · 05-31-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by denim
Yes, as soon as they're born, they're well and truly babies. Until then, it's up in the air. I'd actually say it remains up in the air for a week or so after birth, but I'm flexible.

So a 2 day old baby you would somtimes not consider a human?

Anyways, there is a difference between the 17-18 switch and the n/a-1day switch. At 17, you still have rights, you still are a human, you can think for yourself. Yet, somehow the difference of 1 second can turn a clump of cells that has no meaning to you whatsoever into a HUMAN.

denim · 05-31-2004, 02:26 PM

Right! and Right!

BoCo · 05-31-2004, 02:28 PM

She's an unfit mother and should be jailed for child abuse while the baby was in the womb.

User Name · 05-31-2004, 04:01 PM

I and my brother were delivered by c-section in a third world country, and we came out just fine, as did our mother. What the woman did is inexcusable.

Esco · 05-31-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by denim
Yes, as soon as they're born, they're well and truly babies. Until then, it's up in the air. I'd actually say it remains up in the air for a week or so after birth, but I'm flexible.

Oy. You do understand that babies that do miss "full-term" by a few weeks have an excellent chance of surviving and thriving?

I'm astounded by your comments. Truely baffling.

denim · 05-31-2004, 06:25 PM

Once they're born, that's fine. As I said, that's my compromise. I don't care about "full term".

There's nothing unusual about my position. It's very conservative. It used to be very common not to name children for a time after birth due to the frequency that they'd not survive their first so many days.

04-08-2004, 05:14 AM	#42 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	I've been through a C-section. If the baby is full term or almost full term and about to die why would she even want a dead rotting fetus inside her? At least they can save the baby and she doesn't have to go through labor just to deliver a corpse. A C-section can be painful but seriously it's not that big of a deal. I was up and walking through the grocery store within 3 days of STARTING labor. I went through 21 hours of labor before having the c-section and still recovered almost as fast as a normal delivery. My stitches were out in 2 days and I have nearly no scar left only 4 years later. What's the big deal? __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

05-29-2004, 10:27 PM	#45 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	I have a major problem with a 'fetus' being referred to as a "theoretical person." That in itself is absolute BS. So, after nine months of growing, this "theoretical person" in a matter of minutes, suddenly becomes a person with full legal rights??? __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

05-30-2004, 12:23 PM	#47 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	There is a difference from becoming a minor-adult and from clump of cells-complete baby with rights. Whole different ballgame there.......let's use the cliche of 'comparing apples and oranges' here. __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

05-31-2004, 06:37 AM	#49 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	The reasoning behind that is by 18 the person is well and truly an adult. Or, at least, is supposed to be. It's the same deal with unborn babies. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

05-31-2004, 02:28 PM	#53 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	She's an unfit mother and should be jailed for child abuse while the baby was in the womb. __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

04-08-2004, 04:06 AM	#41 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	I didn't say that. I said she can't be held on more than the drug charges.

04-08-2004, 06:35 AM	#43 (permalink)
skysooner Registered User Location: Oklahoma	She showed reckless endangerment for the health of her children. Ultimately this is what she was convicted of. I believe in the right of a woman to choose whether she carries a child or not, but once that decision is made, she should have showed more responsibility.

05-30-2004, 07:33 AM	#46 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	At 18, a child becomes an adult. What's the difference here?

05-30-2004, 01:09 PM	#48 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	That's not my point. My point is that, legally, there's no real difference between the two "changes". One happens at the same speed as the other, and just as arbitrarily.

05-31-2004, 09:48 AM	#50 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Yes, as soon as they're born, they're well and truly babies. Until then, it's up in the air. I'd actually say it remains up in the air for a week or so after birth, but I'm flexible.

05-31-2004, 02:26 PM	#52 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Right! and Right!

05-31-2004, 04:01 PM	#54 (permalink)
User Name Banned Location: Urf	I and my brother were delivered by c-section in a third world country, and we came out just fine, as did our mother. What the woman did is inexcusable.

05-31-2004, 06:25 PM	#56 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Once they're born, that's fine. As I said, that's my compromise. I don't care about "full term". There's nothing unusual about my position. It's very conservative. It used to be very common not to name children for a time after birth due to the frequency that they'd not survive their first so many days.