An issue of personal freedom? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 03-13-2004, 11:54 PM

This might be more appropriate in Gernal Discussion but I was surprised to see another forum turn the issue into one of personal freedom and what rights the government has over your body (much like Roe v Wade).

A woman refused to have a C-section because she was afraid of getting a scar and one of her unborn twins died as a result, so now the state is charging her with murder.
This is the CNN article but I must warn you that the article is accompanied by a portrait of the woman and she is absolutely hideous. So much so that you will probably regret seeing it and forever wonder how she thought a scar could possibly ruin her appearance...

Quote:

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said.

filtherton · 03-14-2004, 12:01 AM

I think it is ridiculous to even attempt to prosecute her. The child wasn't even born yet and she is not obligated to undergo treatment against her will.

If you are going to start prosecuting mothers for stillborn babies where do you draw the line? I hate to inject slippery slopage, but if the shoe fits...

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 12:27 AM

The prosecutor responsible for bringing these charges should be sacked, any court which tries them should be disbanded. This is a grotesque insult to this grieving woman, I wish there was something we could throw these prosecutors in jail for, and leave them there to rot.

HarmlessRabbit · 03-14-2004, 01:06 AM

If you read the article, it sounds like she was afraid of the c-section as a surgical procedure, not because of scars. As you can see from her picture, she hardly seems like someone who really cares about her personal appearance.

A c-section is major abdominal surgery. It should be a person's free choice whether or not they want it.

Utah, being anti-choice, was just looking for a test case, I think. Now this poor woman has to mourn her dead child and fight a lawsuit.

It's funny that a state which is pro-choice on guns can be anti-choice on SERIOUS ABDOMINAL SURGERY.

seretogis · 03-14-2004, 02:34 AM

Personally, it disgusts me that a mother would willingly risk the life of a child like that. However, bringing charges against her for doing so is a bit over the top.

Lebell · 03-14-2004, 02:39 AM

After kicking around a few times in my head, I think that prosecution is over the top.

Even from a pro-life standpoint, I don't see how they justify it, as most of them believe that the woman should carry until birth, which (unfortunately in this case) she did.

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Personally, it disgusts me that a mother would willingly risk the life of a child like that. However, bringing charges against her for doing so is a bit over the top.

I dont think it was a case of willingly risking the life of the child, from the article she seemed to be be terrifyed of the surgery.

And I agree the case cannot be allowed to go forward. My mother has to have an abortion, because they told her giving birth would have killed her... so even if she did it to save her own life, and with the knowledge the chances of the babies survival werent great even if she did continue to carry it... if this woman could be prosecuted for murder, so could my mother (legally)

irseg · 03-14-2004, 02:49 AM

Morally, I think what she did was reprehensible. It's disgusting that she placed the risk of a C-section over the successful birth of her child. I'm glad my mom isn't a piece of shit like this disgusting hag, or else I probably wouldn't be around.

HOWEVER, I do not believe it is the government's position to judge her decision. She should be allowed to determine whether or not a medical procedure can be performed on her body. Otherwise, what's next? Should we be forced to donate blood and a kidney to allow people who need them to live?

tecoyah · 03-14-2004, 03:58 AM

She should have just pretended to have a religious aversion to surgery....then it would be a non-issue.

seretogis · 03-14-2004, 05:44 AM

A related story, in case anyone for some reason thought this woman was a saint or a scared helpless woman. I think this woman is seriously disturbed and should have her children put in foster care.

Quote:

Woman Named in Twin Death Had Conviction
Sat Mar 13,11:19 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

SALT LAKE CITY - The woman charged with killing one of her twins by refusing a Caesarean section was convicted of child endangerment in Pittsburgh nearly four years ago, a newspaper reported Saturday.

The 2000 conviction of Melissa Rowland stemmed from a supermarket incident in which she punched her daughter several times in the face after the toddler picked up a candy bar and began eating it, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported. Witnesses said Rowland screamed, "You ate the candy bar and now I can't buy my cigarettes."

An Allegheny County, Pa., court sentenced Rowland to five years probation for simple assault, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child. Her daughter was turned over to a child-welfare agency.

Prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged Rowland Thursday with criminal homicide and child endangerment for refusing doctors' advice to get a C-section. Charging documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment.

One of the twins, a boy, was stillborn Jan. 13. A girl survived and has since been adopted, but prosecutors say she tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.

Rowland, 28, of the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan, has denied prosecutors' claims that she avoided the surgery because of fears of scarring.

A call after hours to Rowland's attorney, Michael Sikora, was not immediately returned. Sikora has said Rowland has a history of mental illness. Rowland said she attempted suicide twice and has spent time in a psychiatric hospital.

In a jailhouse interview with The Associated Press Friday, Rowland said her two children from her estranged husband have lived with his parents since 1997. She did not mention the prior conviction and said her children, ages 7 and 9, no longer live with her because she thought they were better off with their grandparents.

LINK

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
A related story, in case anyone for some reason thought this woman was a saint or a scared helpless woman. I think this woman is seriously disturbed and should have her children put in foster care.

It is beyond belief that someone who has a conviction for child abuse has not already had her children taken into care... of course the children should be fostered, this should happen in any case where a parent is convicted of abuse.

And the woman does sound disturbed, and she also sounds pretty scared... I wouldnt say she was a saint, but the state does not have the right to force her to have a c section, the case being brought against her is grotesque, and anyone who is responsible for bringing the case should be sacked, thrown out of office, lose any pension rights associated with that job, because they have proved themselves to be utterly unfit to take part in the process of justice.

Rekna · 03-14-2004, 07:24 AM

This is what happens when white trash is allowed to reproduce

sexymama · 03-14-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
This is what happens when white trash is allowed to reproduce

Quote:

Morally, I think what she did was reprehensible. It's disgusting that she placed the risk of a C-section over the successful birth of her child. I'm glad my mom isn't a piece of shit like this disgusting hag, or else I probably wouldn't be around.

I personally find your language choice very offensive.

That said, I do not believe she should be prosecuted; however, she may want to consider having her tubes tied. She appears to have some long standing issues. However, she also still has basic human rights as outlined in the Constitution.

filtherton · 03-14-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
This is what happens when white trash is allowed to reproduce

Lead the way, Captain Eugenics.

Strange Famous · 03-14-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Lead the way, Captain Eugenics.

It made me think of Keith Joseph, a UK politican who was forced to resign after seeming to saw that "lower class" people should be sterilised

Lebell · 03-14-2004, 11:11 AM

A couple of threads have been getting personal.

I'm forming a theory that mods have to crack down every so often or people don't follow the rules.

Paq · 03-14-2004, 01:22 PM

personally...gotta go wtih the first responder on this one...

There is just something scary about surgery and a C-section isn't just "Oh, let's cut her open across the abdominal area and everything will be fine"; it's pretty serious surgery and any patient can elect not to have surgery performed or have any treatment performed if they wish.

She could have had the birth in the backseat of a car or in her home with a midwife, the outcome would be the same in this case. I would HATE to see where this could lead if they could successfully charge her.

Rekna · 03-14-2004, 02:33 PM

I figured someone would complain about that statement... just an fyi I'm white and not being racist. When I say white trash i'm refering to a specific class of people who are habitually lazy, irresponsible, and many other things. They are a burden on society and they are the ones who do things like this. But someone doesn't have to be white to be like this... I just use that term loosley to describe this class of bottom feeders.

Rekna · 03-14-2004, 02:34 PM

One more thing, the c-section thing doesn't bother me alone. The part that bothers me is that she once punched her kid for eating a candy bar. They should have locked her up and trown away the key then.

filtherton · 03-14-2004, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
I figured someone would complain about that statement... just an fyi I'm white and not being racist. When I say white trash i'm refering to a specific class of people who are habitually lazy, irresponsible, and many other things. They are a burden on society and they are the ones who do things like this. But someone doesn't have to be white to be like this... I just use that term loosley to describe this class of bottom feeders.

Not to offend anyone, but i have heard the exact same argument using "nigger" instead of "white trash". Perhaps you could find a word to describe said "bottom feeder" class that doesn't imply a link between race and behavior.

Also, maybe i missed the part in the article where they broke down the SES of the woman in question. Certainly one could assume that she is poor, but i fail to see how that is even relevant. I fail to see how "bottom feeding" even comes into play.

And irseg:
She isn't your mom, but she could be. She is, in fact, a mother of two. She is somebody's mom. Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely. You probably wouldn't appreciate some random person on the internet, who knows very little about you or your family, calling your mom a bunch of filthy names.

Yakk · 03-14-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

if this woman could be prosecuted for murder, so could my mother (legally)

From the article pasted here:

Quote:

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

This is the basis of charging the woman. Based off that legal precident, should not the DA prosecute?

filtherton · 03-14-2004, 04:51 PM

Under strictly those terms, a woman could be prosecuted for not eating a healthy enough diet while pregnant if her child ended up being stillborn.

It all seems very murky and perhaps a little silly.

hiredgun · 03-14-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Under strictly those terms, a woman could be prosecuted for not eating a healthy enough diet while pregnant if her child ended up being stillborn.

It all seems very murky and perhaps a little silly.

I disagree. In that case, no one could prove that she intentionally put her kids in harm's way. In the Rowland case, multiple doctors flat-out told her that passing up the C-section could be deadly for her kids. Just because the distinction between the two is difficult to pinpoint does not mean that boundary doesn't exist.

For that matter, [/i]should[/i] an extremely negligent pregnancy (involving, for example, diet) be considered criminal negligence if it ends up harming the kid? I think so, unless the mother had no choice (if, for example, economic factors prevented her from getting proper nutrition.) Homicide, no, but a criminal offense? Yes.

But I digress. Pregnancy, like parenthood, is a responsibility. The risk of pregnancy (sexual intercourse) is undertaken voluntarily, and on top of that, abortions are still legal for those who don't want this responsibility. If that mother chose to carry her kids to term, then she chose to take on the responsibility that comes with it to put her kids first. C-section is a common procedure and is relatively safe (studies put the maternal death rate at 0.1%, maximum... most studies show much lower rates - http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/vbacjjg.html)

And, in a court of law, the defendant's history can be used to establish character. Given this woman's history toward her kids (e.g. the candy bar incident, and the fact that COCAINE and ALCOHOL are present in the twin that lived), her intent in refusing the C-section is shady at best.

filtherton · 03-14-2004, 11:08 PM

I just think it would open the door for a great many things to become criminalized. No one here is certain of Rowland's motivations. I don't know if it can be proven that she intended to cause the death of the unborn child.

I find it hard to believe that it would be criminal to refuse a medical pocedure, even if by doing so you potentially end the life of another. My body, my choice.

KnifeMissile · 03-14-2004, 11:34 PM

I think, in this case, it's not just your body.

For instance, is it legal to get an abortion, say, 4 weeks before the expected birth? No, it isn't. This is already law so should repeal it, you think? Her body, her choice... right?

HarmlessRabbit · 03-15-2004, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hiredgun
But I digress. Pregnancy, like parenthood, is a responsibility. The risk of pregnancy (sexual intercourse) is undertaken voluntarily, and on top of that, abortions are still legal for those who don't want this responsibility.

You're aware that many fundamentalists want to remove the right of a woman who was raped to have an abortion, right?

This utah law is a camel-nose-under-the-tent to make abortion illegal. The Bush administration has been pushing for "rights for the unborn" since he took office. There is more to this case that just this woman.

This is standard tactic when trying to push a particular agenda (both on the conservative and liberal sides). Pick an extreme, totally reprehensible target, like a child molestor, and use that case to justify a law that the public probably wouldn't have otherwise supported.

My wife has had a c-section, and I think those of you who haven't been through it don't realize exactly what is done. A c-section absolutely puts the woman's life at risk because it involves sedation, which is always a risk. While I personally would find someone making the choice to risk their child to avoid a c-section disgusting, I *fully* support the right of every woman to voluntarily make that choice.

I also fully support home births, even though the data shows that they are slightly more risky than a hospital birth. By the standards applied in this case, women choosing a home birth who lose their child should be prosecuted.

stevie667 · 03-15-2004, 07:06 AM

personally, i think that this case is just going to get chucked out of court, with a mulit-million dollar law suit following, you know, as standard practice in america these days...

but, what will happen after that is what scares me. we're entering a slipery slope about this type of thing. A law can be used in many ways, and can often be given leiniency in certain situations (such as a woman having to have an abortion late in pregnancy because birth would kill her and the baby e.t.c/some poor kid getting rid of a baby because having it will ruin her life and the childs), but there is going to be hardliners out there who will push for a litteral interpretation of the law.
this is what i'm most afraid of, because in the religious randomness of america, it only takes one president (read monkey) to create a law that will be backed so much that it will remove the right of the mother to decide her life.

yes, some people may say that an abortion kills a life, no matter when it is in the pregnancy, but why don't they look at the flip side. if someone has a child without being ready, or having the ability to fully look after it, that child is likely to have a bad life, the mother will effectivly be removed from productive society, and both will often lead miserable lives.
now, which is better, the end of one potential life, or the ruining of two?

smooth · 03-15-2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I also fully support home births, even though the data shows that they are slightly more risky than a hospital birth. By the standards applied in this case, women choosing a home birth who lose their child should be prosecuted.

I was thinking this exact thing and getting pissed--so I didn't post.

filtherton · 03-15-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
I think, in this case, it's not just your body.

For instance, is it legal to get an abortion, say, 4 weeks before the expected birth? No, it isn't. This is already law so should repeal it, you think? Her body, her choice... right?

Depends on when you think life begins. If you want to debate that i might refer you to do a search for any one of the thousand threads here that attempt to hammer out a solution to that dilemma.

Regardless, it is her body. I guess i'm not aware of any law on the books that allows doctors to force surgical procedures upon unwilling patients. Perhaps that is what you're proposing? Her body, doctor's choice? Barring such a law, it is her body her choice.

Besides, if she really wanted to kill her baby she could've "accidentally" fallen on her stomach. There are many ways to terminate a pregnancy and/or cause still birth. Not all of them are necessarily deliberate acts. Do you think it is a good idea to start prosecuting every woman whose stillborn child could've been saved?

KnifeMissile · 06-22-2006, 12:28 PM

Wow, I was just looking through some old posts and I just discovered that one of my posts was egregiously misread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Depends on when you think life begins. If you want to debate that i might refer you to do a search for any one of the thousand threads here that attempt to hammer out a solution to that dilemma.

Regardless, it is her body. I guess i'm not aware of any law on the books that allows doctors to force surgical procedures upon unwilling patients. Perhaps that is what you're proposing? Her body, doctor's choice? Barring such a law, it is her body her choice.

If you were to read my post a little more carefully, I think you will discover that it does not depend on when I think life begins. The courts have already decided that it is illegal to abort your child so close to birth so it has already been established, legally, that it is not just "your body." That's the only point I was making and anything else was you projecting your idea of me onto me...

filtherton · 06-22-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

If you were to read my post a little more carefully, I think you will discover that it does not depend on when I think life begins. The courts have already decided that it is illegal to abort your child so close to birth so it has already been established, legally, that it is not just "your body." That's the only point I was making and anything else was you projecting your idea of me onto me...

Well, it's been two years. I think if you had proofread your post a bit more carefully it would have been a little easier to read. I think if you had responded sooner i might be more apt to care about my 'egregious misreading' of your post and your subsequent wounded posturing.

The issue of whether or not we(i'm assuming you meant to say "we" instead of nothing at all)should repeal the law about late term abortions is a matter of when we think life begins. Maybe in a legal sense it isn't the woman's body in the context of late term abortions. However, the law, as far as i have seen, doesn't make that distinction in the context of surgical procedures associated with labor complications. In the context of this issue, it is her body, her choice. This wasn't an abortion. This was a woman refusing to have a c-section. Even if the latter ultimately has the same result as the former they are two seperate issues.

KnifeMissile · 06-22-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Well, it's been two years. I think if you had proofread your post a bit more carefully it would have been a little easier to read. I think if you had responded sooner i might be more apt to care about my 'egregious misreading' of your post and your subsequent wounded posturing.

Oh, that was just a cheap shot! While I am deeply embarrassed by every typo, spelling, grammatical, and editorial mistake I make, after reading the post to which you responded, it seems clear that that missing "we" did not contribute to your misunderstanding. It kind of looks like you misread "4 weeks before the expected birth" to mean "4 weeks from conception" or something... Only you really know... And maybe not even so. As you say, it's a two year old thread.

Incidentally, I like to think that my posts have improved over the years. Have you seen my Judiciary v. Executive post? I think it's interesting, although it's not getting the traffic I had hoped...

filtherton · 06-22-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Oh, that was just a cheap shot! While I am deeply embarrassed by every typo, spelling, grammatical, and editorial mistake I make, after reading the post to which you responded, it seems clear that that missing "we" did not contribute to your misunderstanding. It kind of looks like you misread "4 weeks before the expected birth" to mean "4 weeks from conception" or something... Only you really know... And maybe not even so. As you say, it's a two year old thread.

No, i did read it right. And i don't think my response is that off, though it's been so long i don't really recall exactly what was going through my head at the time. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when life actually begins. That being said, i don't really think abortions within a month of the due date are really that justified. Hell, i think that the woman whom this thread is about is probably an asshole.

Quote:

Incidentally, I like to think that my posts have improved over the years. Have you seen my Judiciary v. Executive post? I think it's interesting, although it's not getting the traffic I had hoped...

I like to think my posts have improved somewhat as well. I'll have to check out your thread.

03-14-2004, 12:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The prosecutor responsible for bringing these charges should be sacked, any court which tries them should be disbanded. This is a grotesque insult to this grieving woman, I wish there was something we could throw these prosecutors in jail for, and leave them there to rot. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-14-2004, 02:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Personally, it disgusts me that a mother would willingly risk the life of a child like that. However, bringing charges against her for doing so is a bit over the top. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

03-14-2004, 02:39 AM	#6 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	After kicking around a few times in my head, I think that prosecution is over the top. Even from a pro-life standpoint, I don't see how they justify it, as most of them believe that the woman should carry until birth, which (unfortunately in this case) she did. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-14-2004, 03:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	She should have just pretended to have a religious aversion to surgery....then it would be a non-issue. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-14-2004, 11:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	A couple of threads have been getting personal. I'm forming a theory that mods have to crack down every so often or people don't follow the rules. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-14-2004, 12:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think it is ridiculous to even attempt to prosecute her. The child wasn't even born yet and she is not obligated to undergo treatment against her will. If you are going to start prosecuting mothers for stillborn babies where do you draw the line? I hate to inject slippery slopage, but if the shoe fits...

03-14-2004, 01:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	If you read the article, it sounds like she was afraid of the c-section as a surgical procedure, not because of scars. As you can see from her picture, she hardly seems like someone who really cares about her personal appearance. A c-section is major abdominal surgery. It should be a person's free choice whether or not they want it. Utah, being anti-choice, was just looking for a test case, I think. Now this poor woman has to mourn her dead child and fight a lawsuit. It's funny that a state which is pro-choice on guns can be anti-choice on SERIOUS ABDOMINAL SURGERY.

03-14-2004, 02:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	Morally, I think what she did was reprehensible. It's disgusting that she placed the risk of a C-section over the successful birth of her child. I'm glad my mom isn't a piece of shit like this disgusting hag, or else I probably wouldn't be around. HOWEVER, I do not believe it is the government's position to judge her decision. She should be allowed to determine whether or not a medical procedure can be performed on her body. Otherwise, what's next? Should we be forced to donate blood and a kidney to allow people who need them to live?

03-14-2004, 07:24 AM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	This is what happens when white trash is allowed to reproduce

03-14-2004, 01:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	personally...gotta go wtih the first responder on this one... There is just something scary about surgery and a C-section isn't just "Oh, let's cut her open across the abdominal area and everything will be fine"; it's pretty serious surgery and any patient can elect not to have surgery performed or have any treatment performed if they wish. She could have had the birth in the backseat of a car or in her home with a midwife, the outcome would be the same in this case. I would HATE to see where this could lead if they could successfully charge her. __________________ Live. Chris

03-14-2004, 02:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I figured someone would complain about that statement... just an fyi I'm white and not being racist. When I say white trash i'm refering to a specific class of people who are habitually lazy, irresponsible, and many other things. They are a burden on society and they are the ones who do things like this. But someone doesn't have to be white to be like this... I just use that term loosley to describe this class of bottom feeders.

03-14-2004, 02:34 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	One more thing, the c-section thing doesn't bother me alone. The part that bothers me is that she once punched her kid for eating a candy bar. They should have locked her up and trown away the key then.

03-14-2004, 04:51 PM	#22 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Under strictly those terms, a woman could be prosecuted for not eating a healthy enough diet while pregnant if her child ended up being stillborn. It all seems very murky and perhaps a little silly. Last edited by filtherton; 03-14-2004 at 04:53 PM..

03-14-2004, 11:08 PM	#24 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I just think it would open the door for a great many things to become criminalized. No one here is certain of Rowland's motivations. I don't know if it can be proven that she intended to cause the death of the unborn child. I find it hard to believe that it would be criminal to refuse a medical pocedure, even if by doing so you potentially end the life of another. My body, my choice.

03-14-2004, 11:34 PM	#25 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	I think, in this case, it's not just your body. For instance, is it legal to get an abortion, say, 4 weeks before the expected birth? No, it isn't. This is already law so should repeal it, you think? Her body, her choice... right?

03-15-2004, 07:06 AM	#27 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	personally, i think that this case is just going to get chucked out of court, with a mulit-million dollar law suit following, you know, as standard practice in america these days... but, what will happen after that is what scares me. we're entering a slipery slope about this type of thing. A law can be used in many ways, and can often be given leiniency in certain situations (such as a woman having to have an abortion late in pregnancy because birth would kill her and the baby e.t.c/some poor kid getting rid of a baby because having it will ruin her life and the childs), but there is going to be hardliners out there who will push for a litteral interpretation of the law. this is what i'm most afraid of, because in the religious randomness of america, it only takes one president (read monkey) to create a law that will be backed so much that it will remove the right of the mother to decide her life. yes, some people may say that an abortion kills a life, no matter when it is in the pregnancy, but why don't they look at the flip side. if someone has a child without being ready, or having the ability to fully look after it, that child is likely to have a bad life, the mother will effectivly be removed from productive society, and both will often lead miserable lives. now, which is better, the end of one potential life, or the ruining of two?