Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by jinx
I don't get this point of view. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

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

[quzah]

Originally posted by Brigliadore
But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant.

She put thought into it...

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

Quzah.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by lumberjim
no, the mother cannot actively decide to kill the baby once it is delivered. nor can she stab it within the womb when it is past the point where it could survive if extracted.

It can survive if extracted at about 6 months now. Hence the situation.

It could have been extracted and saved.

If not murder, at least neglect.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by wolf
Actually, I think the last time that happened it was the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wasn't it?

Heart and lungs, if memory serves.

People wait months or years on a transplant list ... Gov. Bob somehow ended up with a perfect match donor within a couple weeks ...

Heart and liver. Gov. Robert P. Casey.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by dar512
For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

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

[wolf]

Originally posted by Fireman
I dont think that the mother should go to prison, let her continence(sp?) be her judge and jury. But I feel that she should not be able to have anymore children though.

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

[Fireman]

I think you are right,wolf.

[Radar]

Well, just as you don't think she should be punished, neither should whomever arrested her. Doing one's job isn't a crime.

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.

Common sense says so

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.

BTW, I think there's a difference between "someone trying to save the life of your unborn child" and "anybody who wants to cut 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.

For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

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.

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights?

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

A fetus has a unique set of genes.

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.

A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth. Is one more human than the other?

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 government in the past has taken some adults and forced them to go into dangerous life and death situations with the (arguable) purpose of insuring the safety of other people.

It is called the draft.

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.

so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

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.

This is called being a "Republican".

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.

When a Mexican or Canadian takes one step over the border they have US constitutional rights they didn't have a few seconds before. Location, location, location

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.

[lumberjim]

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.

[OnyxCougar]

I disagree on the "it's not a baby" arguement. It IS a baby. It sucks it's thumb, it kicks, it moves, it responds to noise, it is a growing baby.

Make no mistake. No matter when the pregnancy is terminated, it is killing a child. If you don't terminate the pregnancy, it grows up to be a child. No matter what timeframe you kill it, it is a child. 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 10 months, 10 years. It's just the age of the child. Not fetus. That's just a slippery arguement to try to make people feel better.

If they would have strapped that woman down and cut her open, what would they have taken out? Twin babies. So what was in there? Twin babies. She was CARRYING twin babies. And she refused to be cut open, despite multiple doctors (not just one) telling her that one or both of her children (not fetuses) may die. Know what she said? "Then let them die."

Her refusal consitutes at LEAST neglect and endangerment. She willfully and with all medical knowledge available to her SIGNED A CONSENT FORM saying she knew the risks. She understood that one or both of her children could die.

I agree that government should have no jurisdiction over her body, and cannot force her to have a c-section.

But, as Radar is constantly telling us, in the "responsible world", the consequences of her actions, (the death of one of her children (not fetus)) should be met with the appropriate punishment. She made a choice that resulted in one of her children's death, and she should be punished accordingly.

[Clodfobble]

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.

[jinx]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
It's just the age of the child. Not fetus. That's just a slippery arguement to try to make people feel better.

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.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx
...then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with...

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to...


I don't get this point of veiw. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

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.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Brigliadore

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

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.

[jinx]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


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.

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.