A truly disgusting situation
 

link to cnn.com

The fact that these charges were brought was bad enough, but the final paragraph was the worst:

That shows that we've gone MUCH farther iinto the pit of Hell than I thought. If someone tried to force my woman to be cut open against her will because of some theoretical kids, I'd have her out of this country so fast it'd be like she evaporated. This is like something out of The Handmaid's Tale, and that's just horrible.

I don't see any good aspect to this.

I feel the same, women should still have control over their bodies. However:
This makes me pissed. She deserves jail time for carrying a pregnancy that recklessly.
Edit: Or at least decent counseling.

Re: A truly disgusting situation
 

is it? trying to keep away from the whole "When does life start?" is unavoidalbe.

IMHO, the vanity of the woman over rode the right of the child to live.

The fact that you think that they are "theoretical kids" seems a bit deplorable. We've heard from the mother, but what about the father that could have wanted her to have the child and she just didn't want the c-section because of vanity reasons which she admitted to previous doctors.

Also she's tested positive for drug use. Not a model mother at all.

I have had one child removed without my choice because I have no voice in the choice of abortion. I would be EQUALLY upset if she took this same route.

Agreed. Counselling at least, and they appear to be doing that in addition to the jail time. The last paragraph is more of a separate issue. I'd not been aware that women in this country had been forced into having operations like this, and I find that horrifying.

"But it's for the children!"

Right. Fuck the children. How about the adults, for once?

Re: Re: A truly disgusting situation
 

I'm not arguing that this woman is perfect, don't get me wrong. I suspect that this particular case worked out w/in reason. It's the last paragraph which I find most scarey.

And as a non-woman, I don't see where you have the right over a woman's body. Period. Fucking her doesn't give you ownership rights. I'm sorry if that bothers you, and I hope that wasn't what you intended to imply, but that's what I drew from the statement I quoted.

I agree that it is disgusting, and I agree that babies are only theoretical people. However, I don't think that dude was saying he had the right over a womans body, just the right over whether his child lived or died, and although I don't believe that newborns are conscious and wouldn't care myself, I can definitely empathize with a person who care about the life of what he perceives as his child. What if some mad scientist stretched out your girlfriend's or wife's womb. Took your 80 year old mom, and implanted her into your SO's womb, and then your SO didn't want to get cut open to save your mom. Wouldn't you want just a little control?

The only thing disgusting is something thinking a living viable baby is 'theoretical'.

That is disgusting. Part of being an adult denim is taking responsibility for your actions, children can't.

Disagree, strongly. But I'm trying not to bring in the big "A" word to this thread.


That's not what's being discussed here. The topic is how the government has apparently forced C-sections on women. Have you read The Handmaid's Tale? People with your attitude are flirting with that kind of future.

People own their own bodies. That's got to be a basic position. Given that, I can do whatever I want to/with my body. That has to be available for women, too. Denying that forces a kind of "1984" reality, which would be beyond horrifying. Do I need to explain this?

When you think of the child, you MUST also consider the world you're bringing that child into. Destroying the world in order to save it for the child doesn't seem like a productive idea.

My woman, whoever she might be, is my future. My parents are my past. I live in the future, not the past. That's not difficult.

Re: Re: Re: A truly disgusting situation
 

Not the thought i wanted to convey.

In 1989 my then g/f got pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion. I wanted to raise the child even as a single parent. She had the abortion regardless of my own wants. I had no choice in that matter.

Had it been this issue I would have spend every penny that I had to protect my interests of being able to raise a child via the court systems. Note this woman was willing to HAVE the child, not abort it or not raise it.

Now, fast forward to today. I have no interest in having children. I'm glad now looking back that she made that decision.

The idea that a woman is being charged with murder for not taking a doctors ADVICE (and yes, it is just that, advice) is insane. Yes, a doctor probably knows what is best for the "to be" child in a case like this, but it is still just advice that he is giving. There is no way of knowing FOR SURE that the child still would have survived.

If this woman didn't want to have a c-section that's her choice. Until that child is born it is a part of her body. As much as I may disagree with her choice, she still has the right to make it.

It is a well established fact that, while the debate about what moment a fetus becomes human is debatable, a baby ready to give birth is indeed a human. It has EVERY biological function of a human, not to mention that many people have, through hypnosis, recovered memories from IN THE WOMB.

This is not an abortion issue for the same reason that there IS a point in which abortions are illegal. What point that is may be debatable, but very few people would debate that there is no point at all.

This woman is a sick individual and, frankly, deserves all the jail time she gets.

As for forcing some women to have C-sections, it is hardly a common practice and obviously only done near the point in which a baby is ready to be born, where almost no one, including many pro-choice advocates, would say the baby is not a human.

Yep, what he said. This is not a case where a woman said quite plainly, I don't believe in surgery, so please let me have the baby naturally, and was then convicted with murder charges. This was a woman, who only weeks before delivery was taking serious drugs, and showed little concern for the well being of her child. Her own vanity was more important to her than her child's life.

And like Secret said, I think 'forcing women' to have C sections is very rare, and only happens in cases where it is absoluetly vital to the child's life. I personally strongly believe that a baby about to be born is every bit as human as I am now, and I would do anything, even give up my life if it came to that so that the child could live.

Re: Re: Re: Re: A truly disgusting situation
 

And if things had gone the other way, you'd have either raised the kid or married her. How you'd have felt about it now is unknowable, agreed. And she has to live with her decision, you can bet on that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A truly disgusting situation
 

true... I didn't speak to her for over 10 years, and after 9/11 she contacted me. She has 3 kids now... I'm sure she wonders a little...

ironically like I said, I don't. I'm glad that I'm where I am now compared to my other friends who do have kids.

Then complain to God when a woman dies in childbed. Or has a miscarriage. Until that kid is out, I don't see it as a real person. Kids (and women) used to die during a birthing all the time. People didn't name them for a year or more in some places because they tended to die too often to bother.

Now we can do better, which doesn't mean we should, nor does it mean we should force such drastic activity as major abdominal surgery on a woman who doesn't want it. It opens more than just her belly. It opens a really nasty philosophy which I just don't want to see happen. The results are much worse than the disease. IM(strong)O.

I think the c-section should have been enforced. It's a kid, and scar is not much to fuss over.

It is illegal and most pro-life advocates also do not believe it is right to force a woman to have a child when it puts her life in danger. Even the Catholic church supports abortions if the woman's life is in danger.

I'm as positive as one can be without knowing the specific facts that the few instances where women are forced to have C-sections are instances where it does not pose a significant risk to the mother.

Very Catholic of you, I'm sure. Some of us out here do not follow that philosophy, and would strongly resist being forced to do so.

My parents, for one pair, when the choice came to choose a hospital, were told that the preferred one was Catholic, where they would do anything to save the baby, even sacrificing the mother. So they went to the General hospital. I don't blame them at all. I wouldn't have known any difference.

You must not understand how serious a surgery a c-section is, then. They have to go in, move the guts out of the way, cut open the uterus, pull out the kid (making as little contamination as possible), then put it all back, less the kid and probably the afterbirth.

This is not a little thing. OTOH, there's the woman in Mexico who gave herself a c-section according to cnn.com. The amazing thing about that is that she lived. So far. She made her choice. Allow others, please, to make their own.

Significant surgery, yes, risk of death however under professional, modern circumstances is another story. Trust me, I know well enough how significant the surgery is - I was delivered by C-section and have discussed it with my mother plenty of times.

having watched a c-section(and vaginal delivery) it's not as such moving the guts so far about...yes there is some tissue to move out of the way, but nothing that is a vital organ.

http://www.davidgarrigus.com/pages/v...reanbirth.html

http://www.luhs.org/health/topics/pr...es/inutero.gif

What is a Cesarean Section (c-section)?
If a woman is unable to deliver the fetus vaginally, the fetus is delivered surgically, by performing a cesarean section. Cesarean sections are usually performed in an operating room or a designated delivery room. Some cesarean sections are planned and scheduled accordingly, while others may be performed as a result of complications that occur during labor.

Once the anesthesia has taken effect, an abdominal incision is made, the amniotic sac is opened, and the baby is removed. The woman may feel some pressure and/or a pulling sensation.

Following the delivery of the baby, the health care provider will stitch the abdominal incision and the mother is given oxytocin (either by an injection into the muscles or intravenously) to contract the uterus, thereby preventing bleeding from occurring.

Conditions for a Cesarean Section:
There are several conditions which may necessitate performing a cesarean section. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

previous cesarean section

infection in the mother

chronic health conditions of the mother (i.e., heart disease or diabetes)

fetal distress

abnormal delivery presentation (i.e., breech, shoulder, brow)

a labor that fails to progress or does not progress normally
erythromycin ointment is used to protect from infection
placental complications (i.e., placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the cervix and presents the risk of becoming detached prematurely from the fetus)

link

They make it look "easy", but that doesn't change the fact that it's major surgery.

Nope, I'm not Catholic actually, just how I feel. :)

And I know C sections are a big deal, but seeing as how I wouldn't exist without them, I think generally speaking it's a better choice then your child not being born. ;)

If you don't think that any such surgery is potentially risky, speak to an OB. ANY surgery is potentially deadly. Complications can always happen. By definition, they're unexpected. Also, being human, doctors can fuck up. Has happened. I know.

Potentially risky is hardly a reason to not do a surgery. Under that philosophy, we should just get rid of emergency surgery and only work to revive people enough to ask permission to perform "potentially risky" surgery on them. The point I am making is that in the modern day and age, a c-section is potentially risky, but not probably risky.

Fair enough.

And I'm a forcips baby. Explains a few things, I say. But that's not the point.

Either way, the baby has to come out. If it doesn't come out, it rots in there, gives the mother a HELL of an infection, and kills her. I realize that. I say it's her choice.

This particular situation involves a "sick" woman, who had legal issues unrelated to pregnancy. My position is that's all you can really charge her with. Invoke liability for prenatal childcare, and you have to start tying down all women who MIGHT be pregnant, and regulating what they can do, eat, and smoke. Not acceptable, at least to me. Some women might enjoy it.

Hate to differ with you, but I feel it's a reason to avoid all elective surgery. Whether a c-section is "elective" is another issue.

Dr. Denim, which 'guts' do they have to move?


She is a disgusting human being and I hope she goes to jail for a long time.

BTW my sister in law had a C-section last Friday. I saw her on Saturday, she was doing fine. She went home on Monday no problem.

The horror.

I fully support peoples rights to be assholes, but not when it comes to killing viable humans.

I agree with denim somewhat here. It is your body and you have the right to do with it as you please. I agree with having a basic set of laws to uphold the rights of each individual human but the goverments have to much control now. They take from us out right to make decisions.

I am very pro choice. This woman chose to carry her babies to full term. Once that choice was made, she needed to take responsibility which, imho, means delivering them safely if at all possible.

Yes, the babies are viable at full term. When my daughter was four she told me about her earliest memory. It included blue blood, being scared, then going toward the light and finally being happy to meet us. I can understand some of that being "pretend" but how in the world would a four year old know about blue blood!?

This doesn't address the point. If you hold women responsible for prenatal care, you have to tie them all down for the good of their reproductive health, only feed them what's "good" for them, only let them do things which aren't risky, not let them smoke anything or consume anything or whatever which might put their potential fetus at risk. I don't feel that is a good thing.

You are good with that which isn't relevent to the discussion, you know? :rolleyes:

C-sections are relativly safe. Both me and my brother were delivered through the procedure. I think its pretty sad she let the baby die. I can understand wanting to try natural child birth but sometmes there is no other way. I'm pro abortin but c'mon a baby that induces labor is living at that point (ok i guess coffin birth is an exception but you get my gist). The woman was acting reckless(drug use while pregnant) and suffred from mental illness so she doesn't seem like the best person to make a judgement call on another person's life. How come she wouldn't get one after getting two already?

Edited:becuse i skimmed the article

Go back and re-read the article. "Only" one died.

(edited in response to his edit)

I think it is relevant to the discussion, because the issue isn't about big brother, it's when does a baby become a viable human being, so when does the mother become responsible for their children, instead of their own body?

I suppose women should have the right to abuse their own bodies with drugs and alcohol, but at what point during pregnancy does this become child abuse? What the mother puts into her body is what the baby gets made out of, and whether it's legal or not, a mother like in this story is not acting responsibly at all.
What kind of choice is it to carry a fetus to term only to make a selfish decision that puts their child's life in danger... A viable person on the brink of existence should have the opportunity to be born safely.

As for a forced C-Section, it's still relevant to consider when the child becomes his/her own person. Is it negligence if the mother decides against the better judgment of medical professionals and causes the death of her child? Is that some form of manslaughter? Does the fact that she knew that refusing a C-Section would probably cause the death of at least one of her children show predication or intent? Charging her with such things cannot be done unless we establish if it was indeed a person that was killed, and the underlying question is the most persistant one in logical discussion about abortion: "When does life begin? When does the baby become an individual person with the right to live? Is it the moment it leaves the mother's body? Is it when it can survive on it's own? Is it when it has a fully formed brain and becomes sentient? Is it when the first cells divide? Is it the moment of conception? " My fear is that a decision to recognize a child still in the womb as a living person with rights of its own is the first step in chipping away at a woman's right to choose. This individual case may not be about abortion, but the ramifications of the precedence its ruling will create will definitely be used in the future arguments over choice.

Not to me, sir. It's about keeping government in its place, and keeping the neighbors from invading where they're not needed or wanted. Busybodies need not apply, and all that.

Some time after the pregnancy is over, or did you miss my point?

You can't guarantee an equal chance to all children, just as you can't guarantee good parenting. We're not likely to have "parenting licenses" any time soon, neither are we likely to have agreement as to what should be in such classes.


People don't necessarily choose to have children. Sometimes, it just "happens" as a result of certain activities. So it goes. To then force them to not only be parents but be good parents is nice in an ideal world, which this isn't.

In this world, we have to give people context, which means both what they do and what we do to them has meaning we may not intend. To force people to be parents and even good parents is, in some cases, like trying to force a horse to sing: it won't happen.


No one has a right to life. Throw a person out of a plane at 30000ft and tell the universe of their right to life. Throw them in the middle of an ocean and ditto.


Exactly, and worse.

I dont want a scar! This is also on another post.
Its her choice any wyas when she has the c-section its just going to cause her more pain. and when you take a baby out early there is a high risk of some thing wrong with the baby and it might die.

I see your point denim, and I think we are in agreement for the most part. like I said in chat,
"i actually changed my wording to right to live, because saying "When does the baby become an individual person with the rights as an individual" sounded redundant "

I wasn't thinking of the indications the term "right to life" would convey (I'm not a conservative, nor am I religious). Although, from a constitutional standpoint, citizens are guaranteed the right to life among other things; you can throw someone out of a plane at 30,000 feet but their "right to live" is what guarantees your court date. In the natural world, there are no rights, but in our culture/civilization, we do have them.

edit:: I wish people were good parents because they want to be, not because they're afraid to the consequences. If they don't want to have the children they should get an abortion early on, or put the child up for adoption after birth. Getting pregnant doesn't have to mean being a parent, but it does necessitate a degree of responsibility for oneself and their offspring, whether they keep the child or not.

Okay, good point.

I see, so, a mother who chooses to carry her child to full term and does coke during the whole pregnancy only to give birth to a baby addicted to coke has done nothing wrong? I'm sorry, but that's some pretty fucked up logic.

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

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?

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.

Update time
 

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

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

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???

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Right! and Right!

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

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.

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.

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.