The Cellar - Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5305)

Quote:

Originally posted by Troubleshooter

*checking for sarcasm*

i mean, really......Doesn't the fact that you have to ask say something? How often do people come up to you and say "man, you're cool." and mean it? Do you think that you're so cool that this might actually occur? In public? .........snicker.

PS. My mom thinks I'm cool.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar

I can appreciate your anger as a mother. I felt the same way about Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. I think an adequate and fair punishment for Andera Yates in particular would include being anally raped with a broken glass dildo dipped in the ebola virus or to have injections of aids and cancer to see which would kill her slower. She should be lowered alternately inch by inch first into a wood chipper, and then into lemon juice. Susan Smith on the other hand should just be boiled in oil and dragged behind a train from LA to New York. But that's just my opinion.

I feel bad for Andrea Yates and her entire family. Tragic. I think I could off Susan Smith myself though... with something dull.

Quote:

Originally posted by lumberjim

PS. My mom thinks I'm cool.

Moms are required to maintain such and similar delusions about their children. It's a survival trait.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar
I don't require faith because natural law is self-evident to virtually every person on the planet. Those who don't recognize natural law/natural rights are among a very small minority.

I think you'll find that any ideology that is so profoundly self-evident generally isn't to anyone else.

The analogies I like to use in situations like this are microsoft and pop music. Just because they are popular doesn't mean that they are good.

Quote:

Originally posted by Brigliadore
Another artical:
http://news10now.com/content/beyond_...3167&SecID=105
It states that Rowland is denying the charges and claims she already has scars from previous C-sections. So she has not previously had a c-section, and so would not have known what to expect.

huh?

The ideas of natural law and natural rights are so self-evident, the US Government and its laws are based on it, and it's been written about for the last 300+ years.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Then certainly you'd have no quibble with the decisions of voters for whom these rights are self-evident.

Quote:

Originally posted by Clodfobble

And I think it's only making the problem worse: if adoption were really as encouraged as it in theory is, I think many more women would choose it. But the same family/friends who ask accusingly why someone would choose to not have children also say "How could you give up your own child??" to the totally unprepared and inadequate young mother who accidentally got pregnant.

I resemble that. From the time I gave him up to the time I got him back, any time I told the story, that question would be asked. Never mind that I was homeless and living on coconuts and ramen. Nevermind I never saw a doctor because California wouldn't let me go on welfare. Nevermind that I gave birth on the couch. Nevermind I was just turned 17 and hadn't finished school. "How could you give up your baby?" I always felt that was a no win question.

Radar, I simply don't understand how you can logically think that when a baby is born, it comes out concious, crying, SENTIENT, but minutes before that event it wasn't.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

That makes no sense to me.

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

Quote:

Then certainly you'd have no quibble with the decisions of voters for whom these rights are self-evident.

Many recognize that rights are self-evident, but are stupid enough to be misled into thinking they can vote on anything or that a group of people have more rights than a single individual even over their own body which is obviously false. Some are under the impression that rights are granted to us by government; probably because they were educated by the government. Many don't realize that their rights don't include telling other people how to live their lives, what they may or may not consume, etc. These tend to be the same people who want to shove their religion down your throat through legislation and violate the important principle of separation of church and state our nation was built upon. These people chip away at the foundation of freedom and individual rights this nation was built on.

So, I would have no quibble over the decisions of voters, as long as they are only voting on issues they have a legitimate authority to vote on. Issues like gay marriage and abortion don't qualify. Those aren't up to anyone but those taking part and can never be legitimately voted on.

Quote:

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. And a newborn baby really doesn't have sentience either (self-awareness). They don't know they have hands or the ability to remember things 5 minutes ago, let alone have the ability to grasp concepts pertaining to ones self.

What I was saying though is that whether or not the baby (babies are post birth, a fetus is inside of the womb) is fully sentient it has been removed from its host and is now a separate person. While a fetus is within the woman up until the moment of actual birth it is a parasite and has no claim on the life of its host. Nobody may tell another what they may or may not do with thier own body, even if they happen to live inside of it.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

This is what I find most interesting about the entire argument and is probably something that will never be fully agreed upon. George Carlin, I think, once said during one of his rants that life never really stops and just keeps going on and on. There really isn't a division line between a fetus and a baby no more than there is a defining moment when a clump of cells becomes something more than a clump of cells. It is a smooth transition from the very first division of cells all the way to turning 18, packing up, and leaving home.

I'm not fully convinced that you can call a fetus a parasite, either, as it has never been recorded in any text I can find that a parasite can be of the same species. I also cannot find any text in which a parasite is not an invader of external origin.

Quote:

Originally posted by case
There has to be a threshold somewhere.

but when it comes to a human life, wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?

Quote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

but when it comes to a human life, wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?

How so?

So some voters are initially right but are stupid and then misled; others are merely wrong; and in either case the great majority on which they vote is completely invalid to start.

Either A) we really still await the source of this self-evidence which is obvious, or...

B) politics must quell the masses no matter what percentage of them figure out what is actually correct, since ALL of them believe that their view is actually correct.