The scar thing is ridiculous and the woman has denied that it was factor in her decision. She already has c/s scars.

"Prosecutors claim the woman ignored repeated warnings in the last few weeks of pregnancy that the twins she was carrying could die or suffer brain damage unless she had an immediate Caesarean section. Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, had refused medical treatment, saying she would rather die than go to either of the two recommended hospitals, and that being cut "from breast bone to pubic bone" would ruin her life, the county District Attorney's Office alleges in a probable-cause statement filed in 3rd District Court."

Plus statements alledgely saying that she'd rather die than being cut open.

Maybe she didn't directly kill the fetus/child/baby/embryo, etc., but IMO, she contributed to its death. We'll never know if it could have survived outside of the womb, but damnit, she didn't even give it a chance.

The machine hosts for the parasite are free to object at any time.

this is 2 different questions.

no, she shouldn;t put the childs welfare before her own
yes, she SHOULD make sure the child 's health and well being are as perfect as possible.......up to, but not including, jeapordizing herself.

Don;t say " a scar and a life are not the same" i won;t argue that, and i think this lady is an asshole, but while she may very well have been negligent, immoral, and just plain shitty, she did not MURDER the kid, and cannot be tried for that!

Maybe that is why they aren't charging her with murder, but instead with first-degree felony count of criminal homicide: depraved indifference to human life. (although some sources report otherwise?)

semantics

semantics

Yeah, I guess so. I thought it was "manslaughter" charges under neglect or something. Not much of a difference, anyways.

She's seemed to have forgotten about that...

Of COURSE she's going to deny that she said that..she's possibly going to be convicted of a first degree felony (criminal homicide)!!!

"An obstetrician-gynecologist who saw Rowland at LDS Hospital on Jan. 2 recommended an immediate Caesarean section because of problems with the fetal heart rate and an ultrasound that indicated low amniotic fluid, the statement says. However, Rowland left after signing a statement indicating that she understood that leaving the hospital could result in death or significant brain injury to the babies, according to the statement.
Later the same day, Rowland showed up at Salt Lake Regional Hospital and told a nurse that she left LDS Hospital because a doctor there wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and this would "ruin her life," according to court records. In addition, she allegedly told the nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." "

If there are credible witnesses that can say for sure that she said that, that *could* be her ass.

This might open up that can of worms, but shouldn't her mental illness record come into play? I mean, I can't imagine anyone of "sound mind" coming out of their face to say they'd rather lose one of their babies than to get surgery that the doctor recommended (not ordered) in order to save their children.

(lumberjim said as I was composing this response):

quote:
So, the woman who is pregnant should NOT put the child's welfare above her own (or at least, make sure that the child's health and well being is as "perfect" as possible)???

Quote:

this is 2 different questions. no, she shouldn;t put the childs welfare before her own yes, she SHOULD make sure the child 's health and well being are as perfect as possible.......up to, but not including, jeapordizing herself.

This is what I meant. IMO, if you are making sure the child's health and well being are as perfect as possible, isn't that putting the child's well being first? *shrugs* I guess I'm the only one that thought that...

Quote:

Don;t say " a scar and a life are not the same" i won;t argue that, and i think this lady is an asshole, but while she may very well have been negligent, immoral, and just plain shitty, she did not MURDER the kid, and cannot be tried for that!

Ok, so does she get ANY type of punishment, or is she allowed to just go home and try again?

So the difference in "murder" and "homicide" is semantics but "fetus" and "baby" isn't???

Boy, are you wrong, OC. LumberJim used the word "kid", not "baby".

she did not MURDER the kid, and cannot be tried for that!

I'm sorry but I just don't think that a fetus in the womb is analogous to a man who can''t swim in the water. Not even close.

I'm sorry but I just don't think that a fetus in the womb is analogous to a man who can''t swim in the water. Not even close.

Really? Can you explain why?

No, because I highly doubt that they are.

Childfree person: "I don't want kids."
Other: "But why? Don't you want to continue your bloodline? Don't you want to give your parents grandchildren? Isn't that being selfish?"
*although in my case, I've usually gotten, "I don't blame ya!" or "Good...don't!", but I don't like hearing others getting questioned like that.*


Person who wants kids: "I want (insert number) of kids."
Other: (goes into a conversation about how they want kids too, etc., and not "Why?").

Well let me clear up that misconception for you.
Once a woman gets pregnant she is a target for an infinite number of questions, coming from anyone who happens to see her. Complete strangers will approach you on the street and demand to know if you plan to breastfeed (after touching your belly without permission). They will demand to know how you plan to give birth and explain to you why you are wrong in your choice. They will demand to know where your baby will sleep, play, go to school...... and will tell you how badly screwed up your child will be if you actually follow thru with your plans. Every decision a parent makes will be scrutinized and criticized by anyone who hears of it.... and doctors and family are the worst offenders.

Endangering a Fetus is not a crime. A crime has only been committed when the rights of a non-consenting other have been violated. It may be against the law, but that law would then be the crime because it violates the highest law of all; Natural Law.

Please take a moment to read the following two essays and get back to me. You will find they give a far more complete understanding of the concept than that somewhat inaccurate and short definition.

Both essays are more than 100 years old and like the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused in them are as fresh today as the day they were written.

[quote]
The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

and

Natural Law - By Lysander Spooner


Again, natural law is the easiest thing in the world to understand once you try to think about every problem from the angle of which solution would provide the most freedom and least intrusion by government on our lives; which solution would provide the most freedom at the least cost to the most people without violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, etc.. Natural law self-evident, but reading those links I provided will help you approach it from the right angle to make it clear and unambiguous.

I don't find this area gray in the slightest. A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host. But even using your example of someone who isn't capable of offering consent, someone else usually makes decisions for them including pulling the plug from life support. Do you think a woman who pulls the plug on her husband when he's a vegetable is guilty of a crime? Let's say he never indicated anything to her one way or the other on the subject but she herself would never want to endure being a vegetable and wouldn't want to burden others in such away. And let's say she assumed her husband shared this opinion so she pulled the plug. Is she a criminal?

This isn't really an accurate comparison since the husband isn't a parasite inside of her body. If he were and she chose to remove him and end his life, it would no more be a crime than removing a tumor.

Rights are absolute as long as you're not violating the rights of others. You are born with them. You can't vote on them, have them taken away from you, sell them, or even give them away. You can choose not to exercise them; someone might violate them, but they are always there FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARE BORN (not before).

Many people have a hard time distinguishing the difference between rights and privileges even though they are the opposite of each other. A right is something we don't need ask permission to do. We are born with them. This includes sole ownership of our lives, minds, and bodies and the sole discretion of what to do with them.

Let's say you and I live next door to each other. I go outside and start walking back and forth across my back yard. I can do it all day and don't have to ask anyone. I can do this because I own my property. Neither you, nor the government can tell me not to walk back and forth in my own yard because it is my RIGHT to do so.

Now let's say I want to go to the store and cut through your backyard. You happen to think I'm an ok guy because I am a defender of your freedom and mine so you agree to let me do it.

This is a privilege. I am crossing your yard at your discretion and with your permission which you may revoke at any time. You could let me cross Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but suddenly decide you don't like me anymore because you lost a debate to me on Friday and suddenly revoke permission. This would not violate my rights. But it would violate your rights if I continued to walk across your property even when you've revoked permission. You own your property and everything within your property that has been obtained honestly and without force or coercion.

Always remember, government has no rights; society has no rights; all rights are individual rights and you must be an individual to have individual rights.

Back to the fetus situation...

You own your body and everything within it. If you have a tapeworm, it's YOUR tapeworm. If you have another parasite such as a fetus inside of you, you own that too until the moment it is born. Up until that very second, it is property. And the moment it is no longer inside of your body, assuming it is alive, it ceased to be property and then is an individual person and is entitled to natural rights.

All of those things are alive, but they do not possess human life and are not sentient beings. We were discussing human life. Perhaps I should have used the term "human" before life to help you avoid confusion.

The gestation period is all that matters, because it is only during this time that the progeny are considered parasites biologically speaking. When the kids grow up and pay for Mom and Dad's prescription pills, that doesn't negate the fact that they were a parasite while in the womb.

We're each entitled to our own opinions, but it is only the opinion of the mother that matters in this regard. While I'd agree the chances of a baby surviving without assistance from the mother are slim to none, this isn't the issue at hand.

Acceptable to whom? Successful to whom?

The people of America (and I'd hazard to guess virtually everywhere else) have never failed to voluntarily commit to defending this country by enlisting in the military during any war including unjust and unprovoked wars like Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Only a completely voluntary military ensures the government won't rush into wars we don't belong in. It means the people (individuals) must support the government's reasons for war and keeps everyone honest. It is only the acceptance of the person whom the government is attempting to draft that matters. If this person doesn't support the reasons for the war (perhaps he's Irish and America is attacking Ireland without provocation), it would be a gross violation of his most basic human rights to use force to send him into danger or death despite his wishes. The government holds no claim over his life and can not make this decision for him.

The only people for whom conscription has been successful are government bureaucrats and politicians who might start a war to appease politically influencial companies, or to secure trade with another country, or for any number of reasons that defy the only reason for having a military which is DEFENSE.

I don't think the question was directed at me, but sure I'll answer it.

I'm against conscription because it defies natural law, common sense, and freedom and amounts to nothing less than slavery and murder. I am against the death penalty, but only because of the ineptitude of government. Many people who have gotten the death penalty have been later found innocent of the crime. Many others have been found not guilty of the crime before the death penalty but prevented from giving new evidence (DNA) etc. If there were a mountain of indisputable evidence including DNA, video tape of the crime, finger prints, and dozens of very credible witnesses, to a very heinous and nasty murder for instance, and I were on the jury I'd do what I thought best. If I had absolutely no doubt I could send them to die, but I'd try to find every doubt I could.

I also didn't discount the sacrifices of those who have died defending America. This has nothing to do with the argument against conscription. I respect and honor those who have voluntarily joined the military and defended America and even those who were forced to join and were basically murdered by our own government. I'm saddened by the fact that most of these great people died while being used as pawns in unconstitutional wars when the U.S. military wasn't defending America, but rather, defending another country, attacking another country, or otherwise being misused.

What makes you think foreign people who live in the United States don't pay tax? Most green card holders and even illegals pay tons of taxes. In addition to the regular sales taxes, tariffs, excise taxes, etc. they pay social security and income taxes. Yet they are prevented from collecting social security and in many cases from collecting welfare even when they paid into the system.

Rights are not given out by government. They are something you're born with. Remember rights are the opposite of priviledges.

Too many to list....but mainly non-fiction.

For work, I read a lot of computer networking manuals and boring white papers, etc.

For years at home I read classic books, but recently I'm reading more contemporary and socially relevant books like Restoring the American Dream by Robert Ringer, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do by Peter McWilliams, Libertarianism in one lesson by David Bergland, The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It by Judge Jim Gray, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer, How to Win Local Elections by Judge Lawrence Grey, Drug War Addiction by Sheriff Bill Masters, The Libertarian Reader by David Boaz, etc.

I also like all the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicle books, Sci Fi books like Neuromancer by William Gibson and Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, etc.

As I said, really too many to list

right argument, wrong customer.

i think you knew what i meant, and are now just nitpicking.

i'm surprised at you. i see that you have strong feelings about this, and i respect your opinion. let's dont throw stones at each other.....it's not that important.

peace, mama, peace.

Um. There are many ways that such surgery could "ruin her life" other than scars. I don't know if there was a scar quote, but that one isn't it.

I do suspect some mental illness, though, based on the level of fear and the fact that she had already undergone the procedure.

A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host.

Your explanation regarding the definition of a "person" versus a "fetus" is probably the best I've seen in the discussion so far, but I find it surprising that a mere umbilical cord makes so much of a difference. A fetus has has no consent to offer, but neither does a one year old. A fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother, but a one year old cannot survive without the care of its mother -- it is just as much a parasite at that age. Location of the, uh, lifeform doesn't change that.

I have no real opinion on the matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but I find the argument interesting because of the definitions drawn and how they are defined.

One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.

Sure, but where was the, "but why would you even WANT to be pregnant" question? I'll tell you where...nowhere to be found, because that's not something that many people would even DARE to ask, but yet, as I stated, I know of more people who get 20 questions about how/why they don't want kids. Here's an example: My cousin, who is 21, last Christmas announced she was pregnant. Of course, automatically, everyone was like, "OH, that's wonderful! Congratulations!" and one of my aunts said wistfully, "A child is always a miracle" (which made me cringe, but that's for another topic). At any rate, I sat there, stunned, and was like, "Oh shit..." because I knew that she was in no way financially or mentally ready to be a mother, and that this pregnancy was not planned at all. Yeah, she's 21, but she's not mentally an adult. She's not childish or anything, but just...not mother material...not yet. She hadn't "lived" life...hadn't gotten out there to experience what a 21 year old likes to do. I know when *I* was 21, the last thing I wanted to do is have a baby (and this was before I knew the word "childfree" even existed).

I can only go by personal experiences jinx. I understand what you are saying about being scrutinized, but it's about how to parent, and not why become a parent.

One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.

Hmm, yes, but some children that are not yet born that have been removed from the womb far before they are ready to be born often thrive without the need for a host body. Does the ability to survive outside of the host body define it, or does the technical aspect of passing naturally from the body graduate the being?

Ah, ok yes, I can see that difference. It would be considered rude to suggest that someone shouldn't have children, but not rude in the least to suggest that someone should (or are making a mistake if they are not). Crappy double standard. Not unlike the people who think it's ok to make negative comments about how skinny someone is. Some people just don't think.

You have the right to choose to put the child's welfare above your own. But you are not required to do so. It is like the CPR reference I made. I can choose to save your life, but I don't have to. It's also not a crime if I decide not to do so.

Quzah.

For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another. While a child (not a fetus) is dependent as an infant, it isn't necessarily dependent on the mother. It could be dependent on adopted parents, on the father, on a pack of wolves, etc. Let's keep it to the biological definition please.

Everyone else is giving you false information then. The government and laws of United States of America have NEVER been based on Christianity or the bible. America is not a Christian nation and it never will be.

A fetus is not a person. At best they are a "potential" person. Not fulfilling that potential is hardly "murder" and it's not even the loss of a human life. A fetus does not possess human life which is defined by sentience. An abortion is the loss of potential, not the loss of a life.

I agree. So stop trying to make it sound as though it were a crime, or that it violated the rights of another person. No matter how hard you try to word it, a fetus is not a person and an abortion is not a murder. It is a medical procedure. But this wasn't even an abortion. It was simply someone making a choice to refuse to have surgery. Charging someone with a crime for this is no different at all from charging them with a crime for choosing not to take their tonsils out.

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. In my personal opinion if I were told that while my wife was in labor that only she or the child would live, I'd hope my wife lived.

Why would we call a fetus a human being when a fetus doesn't possess human life? A fetus is not a human being. Human life is defined by sentience which a fetus doesn't have.

No, she didn't even do that. She chose to accept the risks of having the child without a C-Section and it didn't work out. But as someone mentioned, if a person is drowning in front of you, and you don't save them, you are not guilty of a crime. Nor is this woman.

She shouldn't be punished other than the feelings of guilt she may have. I would hope she learned a lesson and didn't get pregnant, but it's not up to me, you, or every single other person in America combined.

Very well said.

For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another.

But this is where it is confusing. The biological definition of a parasite states that it does not matter if the life form is in, on, or living with another, just as long as it is dependant on the host life form and gives nothing in return that contributes to the well being of that host.

The biological term of parasite refers to a host and a parasite. The parasite in this case is physically attached to...or within the host.

The social meaning of the word parasite would describe a baby, a mooching brother-in-law, etc. but is entirely different. Therefore the accurate meaning of the word "parasite" in our discussion is the biological term, not the social one.

Except for vice laws. And most of those are more based on centuries of interpretation than on anything in the Bible.

In understanding the idea behind a parasite, perhaps we were given a definition that had a bit of the social one mixed in with it during biology. I do remember them telling us that parasites were usually harmful to the host in some way.

An Interesting Argument - I was surprised to see this debate exists elsewhere.

Of course, who says fetuses aren't harmful to your health? :eek:

IIRC, I saw it somewhere, but I wasn't saying it was that quote.

Quote:

I do suspect some mental illness, though, based on the level of fear and the fact that she had already undergone the procedure.

"Rowland was committed to a Pennsylvania mental hospital when she was 12, weighing almost 200 pounds, and diagnosed with "oppositional defiant disorder," Sikora said. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry defines the condition as an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with day-to-day functioning."

"Oppositional defiant disorder" is IMO something they cribbed right out of Soviet mental institutions -- it's a medicalization of disobedience.

As for the statement she signed, I wouldn't put too much weight onto it -- it's quite likely they physically prevented her from leaving the hospital until she signed, which makes the signature under duress.

Oppositional defiant disorder sounds like they don't like being told what to do. Imagine that a 12 year old who talks back and doesn't like being told what to do. lol

She sounds like she should be a libertarian. She supports drug use, won't allow others to dictate what medical procedures she will or won't have, and doesn't like being told what to do.

I think that is the crux of the attitude. Since most pregnancies are unplanned, society as a whole has been programmed to put the "best possible face on it", as it were. Give the expectant mother as much positive feedback as possible, you-can-do-it, be happy, you didn't just f*ck up your life.

In a perfect world, every pregnancy *would* be a choice -- not a negative one (abortion) but a positive one. I'm old enough, responsible enough, financially secure enough, have sufficient family support... I want to have a baby. Pop this pill, have sex with the man I choose, blammo, I'm knocked up.

When all women have that sort of positive control over their reproductive abilities, then we (as a society) can make it a crime to maltreat a fetus. Till that day, it has to remain a case of "morally reprehensible, legally untouchable".

One can argue that having sex itself is reproductive control. Women who abstain rarely have children.[1] But sex is recreation in our culture, and part of most couple's relationships. It is therefore untenable to tie sex to childbearing, no matter what the Religious Right says.

- Pie

[1] The pope and the bible notwithstanding.

In regards to Spooner. Sounds great in theory, but if it were so simple, so, "...easily understood by common minds..." then why is it that we have such an enormous problem with crime?

Theories are great to work from, but like a battle plan, it only lasts until first contact with the enemy. And to borrow from yet another philosopher, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person..."

Now I believe I understand your fervor for your belief in Natural Law.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that Natural Law is the highest law. And that law is handed down from on high.

Whose god/dess(s/es)? Your god/dess(s/es)? Wolf's god/dess(s/es)? Where does an athiest stand in this legislative heirarchy?

Again, if I'm wrong, tell me. And show me where.

Edit: typos

As others have stated here, she elected not to have surgery and to birth the kids vaginally. That was her right and choice and her risk. Do I find it despicable and a choice that I cannot understand? Yes. Criminal? No. I support her right to decide when and who can cut her body.

What good will convicting her of a crime do? Setting a precident that the government or doctors decide what is best for individuals' bodies? Eeek. Genetic engineering? Force women to carry unwanted offspring? A little too Margaret Atwood for me. More bad than good, I think. Individuals have the right to deny surgery on their own bodies.
(hey I agree with Radar on this point! Zounds!)

Every child should be wanted and loved. Planned parenthood!
What is the proper response to this sad story? Therapy has been mentioned. I'll chime in with education. I do support public education because for some, it offers a chance to overcome a start like this and make a better choice themselves, when the time comes.

Here is an updated article on this woman.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4509692/
As has been mention this woman admits to being mentally unbalanced. She has attempted to commit suicide twice and as was noted several posts ago she has spent time in a psychiatric hospital.
Listed in the article is another tid bit of info, Rowland was convicted of child endangerment in 2000 for punching her two year old daughter several times in the face after the toddler picked up a candy bar and began eating it while in a Super Market. Witnesses said Rowland screamed, “You ate the candy bar and now I can’t buy my cigarettes.”

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.

Natural law comes from nature, the creator, evolution, etc or whomever you believe created mankind. In any case we're BORN with rights and they are as real and undeniable as gravity. You can no more sell, give away, or vote on gravity than you can your rights. If every single person on earth voted to get rid of gravity tomorrow, we'd still have it.

Natural law refers to rights and doesn't say we won't have criminals who violate it. Even criminals know they're doing something wrong. Nobody has the right to take the property of a non-consenting other, but they do it. Only when the rights of a person have been violated has an actual crime been committed.


*** GASP ***

Of course you claim to be mentally unbalanced when you're arrested for murder. You lay the groundwork to claim you were innocent by reason of insanity.

quote:Ok, so does she get ANY type of punishment, or is she allowed to just go home and try again?

Quote:

She shouldn't be punished other than the feelings of guilt she may have. I would hope she learned a lesson and didn't get pregnant, but it's not up to me, you, or every single other person in America combined.

So....
Let's allow women to CHOOSE to endanger the welfare of their unborn and birthed child/children, because it's THEIR choice, after all. They will not be punished in the least, because of their FREE CHOICE to endanger their offspring, and that is their RIGHT. Never mind that many things that a woman can do to endanger their offspring while in the womb are PREVENTABLE, it's still ok legally to CHOOSE to endanger that life. Never mind that this would give way to a population of deformed, mentally challenged, physically disabled humans. Noooo, it's ok, because the mother had the R.I.G.H.T. to mess up her child.

Well hell then: why have any laws at all? Let people who feel it's their "right" to kill someone go ahead and do it...no questions asked, no punishment. Feel you have the right to steal, rob, cheat, drink and drive, destroy property...why not? Hey, you don't like that person because of their color? Beat 'em down, do it all! After all, it's your RIGHT! :mad:

You really seem to hammer the point that the fetus is a parasite.

Yes, by definition, the fetus is a parasite, but it is not just a parasite. It seems to be a rather significant parasite because if we destroyed all of them and never allowed any of them to latch onto us, the species as a whole would die. The parent/offspring relationship is a little more complex than just calling the offspring a parasite on its host. We can happily destroy all tapeworms that latch onto people, but we cannot do the same for all fetuses, at least not without dire consquences for the human race. Your comparison is not valid. A tapeworm is forever a tapeworm; that fetus is something with far more potential.

Tell a happy expecting mother she is carrying just a parasite inside her. Isn't it obvious it is far more than just that?

Should it have rights greater than that of the mother? No, that should be obvious.

Should it have equal rights with the mother? This point we can debate all you want.

Should it have no rights whatsoever? It is a human individual, it should be treated with dignity and respect. You could argue that the rights of the mother over her body superscede the rights of a fetus to live, but you can't argue that the fetus should have no rights whatsoever.

At least you got that part right. Here's where you go terribly wrong.....again.

A fetus is not a person and is not entitled to rights. If you abort a fetus or otherwise make a decision regarding YOUR OWN body which results in the fetus not continuing it's journy toward becoming a person, you are not committing a crime because a crime only occurs when you have violated the RIGHTS of another person.

When you rob, cheat, drink and drive, destroy property, commit acts of violence (your motives don't matter so whether or not you did it for race is irrelevant), etc, you are actually violating the RIGHTS (those things a fetus doesn't have but a born baby does have) of non-consenting PERSONS.

Try to get it through your head. Repeat this phrase over and over. A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON...A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON...A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON.

Perhaps, but that sort of a relationship doesn't begin until after the birth has taken place. You mention that fact that if all fetus were removed and aborted our species would cease to exist. This is irrelevant. The fact is that during the time that the fetus is in the womb it is a parasite. Removing it during this period is no more a murder than would be removing a tumor.

I think that is the crux of the attitude. Since most pregnancies are unplanned, society as a whole has been programmed to put the "best possible face on it", as it were. Give the expectant mother as much positive feedback as possible, you-can-do-it, be happy, you didn't just f*ck up your life.

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.

quote:Let's allow women to CHOOSE to endanger the welfare of their unborn and birthed child/children, because it's THEIR choice, after all. They will not be punished in the least, because of their FREE CHOICE...


At least you got that part right. Here's where you go terribly wrong.....again.

This is not about whether you or I are "right or wrong". As far as I can see, this is about people having very strong opinions about a very serious issue.

quote:Well hell then: why have any laws at all? Let people who feel it's their "right" to kill someone go ahead and do it...no questions asked, no punishment. Feel you have the right to steal, rob, cheat, drink and drive, destroy property...why not? Hey, you don't like that person because of their color? Beat 'em down, do it all! After all, it's your RIGHT!

Quote:

A fetus is not a person and is not entitled to rights.

My point was strictly made regarding the rights of the mother, NOT the child/fetus...whatever. I just think it's sad that the unborn child would have to suffer at the hands of someone who claims they care about them. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn WHAT people want to call it: embryo, zygote, fetus, do-hickey. What I find more important is that a woman has decided to go through with a pregnancy. She's close to her due date, and the doctor says that he highly recommends that she have an emergency c-section in order to save the life of her offspring, and this woman in Utah continued to ignore this recommendation, and it sounds like people just want to throw their hands up and say, "Well, she has a right to make that decision and take that risk".

Quote:

If you abort a fetus or otherwise make a decision regarding YOUR OWN body which results in the fetus not continuing it's journy toward becoming a person, you are not committing a crime because a crime only occurs when you have violated the RIGHTS of another person.

*sighs* Fine and dandy. Then you are free to pay extra taxes for the additional costs for higher health insurance premiums, additional mental and physical healthcare professionals, and so on to take care of the many, many children that *wil* (NOT, "might")l be affected by the mother's free choice.

Oh and by the way: YOU are the one arguing with yourself about the whole "the fetus is not a person and has no rights". I don't care about that part of the equation, because it's not the sticking point with me. What IS, however, is that people seem to be satified that the behavior of the mother will be somewhat jusitfied because of her right to behave in such a manner. Oh well....we'll just have to agree to disagree. No one is right..no one is wrong.

*cue Louis Armstrong*

"What a wonderful...world" :worried:

Why do women play music for their parasite? Why do they talk to it so it learns their voice? Why do they quit drinking and change their living habits? That parent/offspring relationship begins during pregnancy, it does not begin at birth.
A late term fetus is not a lump that just sits there and leeches. It is conscience to an extent as much as a young baby is. You can legally call it a non-person, but it has a developing personality that can be interacted with.

I agree, I am free to pay for the additional costs of health insurance. I'm also free to not pay for it. Nobody is entitled to anything they haven't paid for or otherwise obtained without the use of force or coercion. That means nobody else's percieved wants, needs, and desires entitle them to reach into my pocket to pay for them. One man's hunger doesn't entitle him to rob another regardless of how much money they have. If a wealthy man has 1,000 steaks in front of him and his neighbor is poor, the wealthy man is not obligated to share, and the poor man is not entitled to take one of the steaks. I would encourage the wealthy man to share, but he could encourage me to fuck myself.

At least you agree that it is her right to behave in such a manner and that the fetus has no rights. This means you agree that she is not a criminal and while you and the vast majority of those who disagree with you may find her actions distasteful, selfish, or morally reprehensible, none of us has the authority to tell her what to do or the justification to punish her legally.

I am most certainly not attempting to condone or criticize her choices with her own body. It's just none of my business, none of your business, and none of the government's business.

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.

Eh, she's not a mother. We're childfree.

Radar, Quick question because I don't know the answer and you probably will. Where does the money for welfare come from? Does it come from the taxpayers or ?

Radar,

Was your mother bitten by a philosopher or something while she was carrying you?

Because they choose to and because they want thier fetus to develop normally.

It most certainly does. Just as you can not have a relationship with a person locked behind a wall, you can't have a relationship with a fetus. You may stimulate the fetus with things like music or indirect touch through the skin, but only a fool would be so bold as to call something that minor a relationship.

No, it's not a lump. It is shaped more like a big headed baby than a lump. And it doesn't just sit there. It moves around which is not sentience (consciousness), and it's not sitting on anything. It is leeching however.

The quick answer is it comes from taxpayers. But the truth is it really doesn't come from income tax payers. It comes from those who pay tariffs & import fees (in the form of higher prices), excise taxes, inflation (government theft by reducing the value of our money by printing more than we have to back it up), etc.

Most of the money used to pay for social welfare plans (other than social security) doesn't come from income taxes. Income taxes are mainly used to pay for other unconstitutional programs like foreign aid, and to pay the interest on the 60+ Trillion Dollars of debt the U.S. government has racked up thank to the Republicans and Democrats.

I'll take that as a compliment. :)

I just got the political/philosophical bug years ago. I didn't get super active until Peter McWilliams was murdered by the U.S. Government for trying to save his own life. After that I got a fire in my belly that just won't die until I do.

Take it as you will, but that ain't it. I'm just reminded of all of the people who say they have a scar or a phobia because their mother was bitten by something while they were being carried.

I was going to say that I've never met someone who so doggedly defended their unprovable dogma, but then I remembered all of the theists out there in their various guises. They at least have the fallback of faith. What's your excuse?

TS, are you familiar with the McWilliams situation?

Nope, and I wasn't referring to it in any way.

We live in a wash of inequity, venality, banality, and vice. Conspiracies abound, collusion runs rampant, and coercion is the order of the day.

I am aware of that. I expect it. I'm not referring to any conspiracy or cabal trying to take our lives and freedoms away, I take that for granted.

As a sonar technician on a fast attack submarine, I've dealt with spooks, DIA, killers, Navy SEALS. I've met people that the only thing stopping them from looking right through me was the fact that I carry Top Secret information in my head. I've met the people who do the real dirty work. I know people who SCARE me.

Part of the reason they scare me is their unshakable beliefs. An unwillingness to accept the possibility of being incorrect.

I was just asking out of curiosity...we've discussed him here before.

Ah.

I looked it up after my outburst, just to see.

And it's kind of funny that the quote that would pop up when I got back was:

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
-- Nietzsche

If you are speaking legally, I believe that only applies in some states and during some period of the pregnancy. Morally, I believe that is a simplistic approach and a pretty crumby attitude.

now, I would have spelled that: crummy......but your way ads a whole different visualization to the word.

man, you're cool.

*checking for sarcasm*

Ping!
sarcasm confirmed. I repeat....sarcasm confirmed. Collision imminent! Collision Imminent! Dive! Dive!

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 was speaking biologically and in the sense of natural law not governmental law which is much lower than natural law. A fetus is not a person biologically and therefore is not yet entitled to the natural rights of a person. And personally I find it to be a great attitude and I wish everyone had it. The attitude of allowing others to decide for themselves what they will or won't do with thier bodies, lives, minds, etc. without government interference is wonderful indeed.

Man the Torpedos!