No I don't think there is a way to apply my point of view, nor do I think there should be. The only way it could be applied is if every person who wanted to have a child had to apply for a child permit, go through a complete psych. exam, financial evaluation, a general personality evaluation, etc. Who would do that; the government? I don't want anyone to have that much control over someone else. But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant. In many states birth control is free, and if its not free, its not that expensive. Just because a person can have a child doesn't always mean they should.

EDIT: Fixed grammar mistake

She put thought into it...

"Ah fuck it. I only wanted one anyway..."

Quzah.

Heart and liver. Gov. Robert P. Casey.

The woman has committed a criminal action and is threatening the public with a lethal weapon.

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

If I were the woman's lawyer, I would make the following points.

a) The doctors opinions were just that - opinions. Doctors do not always agree and there is never any way to measure the chances in that situation.

b) Health organizations have released warnings about a rise in uncessary C-sections.

c) Doctors routinely recommend C-sections for women who have had them in the past, irregardless of the individual situation. The woman may have had no idea if there was a true emergency or the doctor was practicing 'defensive medicine'.

d) The cosmetic objection the woman is alleged to have made may have been a misunderstanding due to the woman's not being able to articulate her objection. If she had had more than one C-section before, she might simply have developed a phobia towards them. Doctors or nurses may have interpreted her objection as cosmetic when she could not say why she did not want the procedure. "I don't want you to cut into me again" might be interpreted as a cosmetic objection.

e) The equal protection clause gives the woman as much right to refuse an invasive procedure as anyone else, including those making religious objections. If the doctors felt strongly enough, they could have requested a court order as they would in the case of a parent refusing a life-saving operation for a child. The fact that they did not do so indicates that they were unsure of the risks involved.

Article on C-sections

I don't think she has a conscience. She sold it for crack cocaine a couple years ago.

I think you are right,wolf.;)

Arresting people who have not committed a crime is not their job, so they weren't doing their job but were in fact violating the rights of another, which is...you guessed it.....a crime.

No it doesn't. Common sense follows natural law which dictates that we each own our own bodies and everything in them. We each have sole decision making power over our bodies, minds, and lives and can do anything we want with them. Common sense doesn't seem very common with you.

First there is no such thing as an "unborn child". Up until the second they are born, they are a fetus (not a child) and a fetus is not entitled to rights. Second, nobody's rights entitle them to be able to force you to go through surgery, including a fetus if they had rights.

Our rights end where another person's (a fetus is not a person) begin. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. We are each BORN (not before birth) with rights and that rights includes the right to defend our own lives. If a woman were to swallow a live grenade (impressive throat control), it would be no different than taking out a gun and trying to kill people and those whom she was trying to kill would have the natural right to destroy her.

I like the handcuffing to a pole and running away answer.

The situation was different because the woman in the hospital did not violate the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting other.

Absolutely not. That would be saying that a parasite has rights above the host.

Life is not defined by strands of DNA. Life is defined by sentience and by birth. Until the moment of birth, a fetus is a parasite. I know it sounds cold, but it's the truth. To say a fetus not only has rights but that those rights are above the mother's is to say that a parasite has rights and those rights supercede the hosts. In other words, if you have a tapeworm (which has entirely different DNA), the tapeworm has rights and those rights are above yours.

There is no baby one day before birth. Up until the moment of birth, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, they are very different. In one case the parasite is within the host, and in the next they have ceased being a parasite (at least in the same sense of the word) and are living outside of other beings.

The draft is a direct violation of our rights and a violation of the limited Constitutional authority of the U.S. Government. I hope you're not trying to use this violation of human rights as an excuse to violate the rights of others like pregnant women.

Funny eh? Let me guess? Pro death penalty? Life is sacred until you're born. After that they don't give a shit about you. As long as there is a steady stream of people to get shot at, everything will be fine.

Sorry, but Democrats support the draft too. Hillary Clinton and many democrats are pushing to re-instate the draft. Both of the major parties think government has more of a claim on our lives than we do.

All people are born with the same rights regardless of where they are born. The only thing that changes from location to location is which of your rights are protected, and which are violated.

radar, i have officially added you to my buddy list. you make a lot of sense. it's a shame you have a rep as a looney.

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

I know I originally brought up the point of Christian Scientists being a similar scenario, but I've since figured out the legal difference.

Often times guilt has to do with the person's state of mind; whether they knew they were committing a crime or not. In the case of Christian Scientists, they believe that not having the surgery is "saving" the child, whereas having the surgery would condemn the child. It's basically a modified insanity plea, and it's why (to my knowledge--feel free to show otherwise) no Christian Scientists have ever been convicted. On the other hand, this woman understood what she was doing and did it anyway.

Make people feel better about what?



fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Basically, my argument stems from society who tends to heavily question the POV and decisions that the "childfree" make about NOT having kids. I feel that those who desire/want kids should be questioned just as hard. I guess I also don't understand how someone, who has just found out they are pregnant, would not do everything in their power to protect that unborn life, and that would continue to protect it once out of the womb. And yet, "we" (childfree) get called all kinds of child-haters, selfish, uncaring...why is it different for parents? What is mind boggling and head explode-y to me is that parents will say they love their child, yet put their child in harms way!

So, I guess that's whay I'm trying to explain when I said what I said. It didn't have anything to do about abortion (even though I am pro-choic) or any type of forced sterilization.

You are my new hero *Grins* That was what I was saying in my response to jinx. I find it funny that if someone says they don't want kids, then all of a sudden it's third degree time with family/friends, etc. But, not one question when someone says that they want kids, even if it's blatently obvious that they shouldn't.

As far as birth control, anyone can go to their local Planned Parenthood. They will work with the person, if what they need requires any payment. IIRC, they allowed me to pay a reduced rate for the Depo that I was on a couple of years ago. I heart them very much. :D

Why would you assume that parents aren't questioned just as hard? Just because you don't experience it?

Putting your child in harms way is incredibly subjective. What you may see as harm (not vaccinating your kids) others see as protection. What you may not see as harm (giving kids soda and McGarbage) other would. Because one doesn't have as much faith in obstetrics as others, they are questioned. But they shouldn't be prosecuted.