*applauding wildly!!*

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to put them in the line of fire even before they are born??? Hell, I worked with a woman who stayed with her abusive boyfriend, who beat the crap out of her even when she was carrying their child. She told me he threw her down stairs, tossed her against walls, and so forth. But hey...it's HER body and HER decision, right? Such utter and complete bullcrap!

Anyway, this situation in Utah is bringing up some very interesting subject matter, including a woman's decision to not have a C-section:

Charge against W. Jordan mother creates legal challenge

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.

...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?

It sounded like to me that she understood the consiquences of what could happen, and she chose to worry about her appearence (thats what is sounds like) rather than save the children, at least one of them in this case. Before you ask, I am a father of two wonderful children, and I asked my wife her oppinion before I wrote this, and she agreed that if it would save the children, she would do it, regardless of what the appearence would be.

But that is my opinion

What I mean is that physiologically, the baby is the same, only its location has changed. A nine month old fetus is just as capable of feelings as a one day old baby. It reacts to people's voices, it feels and reacts to pain. I heard of one case (I wish I could confirm but can't) where the womb was not quite full of liquid, and a late term fetus actually was heard crying.

What I am getting at is that legally, you can define anything not yet out of the womb as not possesing rights. But biologically, one is just as fully human as the other.

If you want to argue that the woman's rights over her body superscede those of another human being's rights to live, that is a different argument, and I can see where that is coming from, however what you are saying doesn't connect with me.

Yes, the woman would have had to undergo surgery, but this was a life and death situation for the fully formed human beings inside her. I see this woman as having neglected the responsibilities of a parent to protect her child.


To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

A thought occured to me.

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.

Yes, I agree. One is a human fetus and the other is a human infant.

Quote:

To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

I guess that depends on how/why he swallowed it in the first place, if it was intentional and if he knew the consequesnces.

until the umbilical cord is cut, or the placenta delivered, the baby is still part of the mother. A parasite.

Survival of the fittest extends to your parents. If they don;t think enough of you to ensure your survival, then the gene should die with them.


so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

or are you just playing devils advocate? just because the government does it, doesn;t make it right. The government also [insert latest government committed atrocity here].

so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

This is called being a "Republican".

It also usually means you have no interest what-so-ever in actually adopting a child that had its life saved by not being aborted.

Or turn it around the other way. The mother follows the doctors advice, say it was just for induction. The baby dies as a direct result of his actions (cytotec or pitocin caused uterine rupture). Rare but it happens. If mom sues she's compared to the hot coffee lady and her lawyer is blamed for the downfall of society.

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.;)

Arhhhhhggg, LJ! Can open, worms everywhere. Can the mother who just delivered the baby with still uncut unbilical cord say "I change my mind, abort it now!', or at this point, is it she forced to have the cord cut and let the baby live? Is cutting the cord considered cutting a part of the mother, or is it tissue that is neither baby nor mother? Can she refuse to have the cord cut because it is an invasion of her body's personal space if she is forced to do so?



so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?
or are you just playing devils advocate?


That last post was just me pointing out that the guvment does impose this kind of thing onto its people. I don't consider myself a draft supported, though I think I would back the WWII draft. The Vietnam draft was for really bad reasons, and the elite got to avoid it, which made it even worse.
The draft as a general idea is a bad thing, but I can think of extreme situations where it might be the lesser of evils for a great many people. I'm not very firm on that though.

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.

she didnt KILL the baby, she chose not to risk her own life.

If the mother decided not to cut the cord, the placenta comes out, the baby is then autonomous. The mother cannot abandon the baby. if she cannot care for it, she must give it over to the state to care for it. again, this lady did not choose to neglect her fetus, she chose to protect herself.

dont mix up issues. this SOUNDS like pro life/prochoice material, but that's not really what we're discussing. no worms.

So true, so true, and a great parallel to this topic!

Okay, I can see I am wandering around a lot of marginal topics, sorry, I tend to do that.

Let me try to state the key question...

Can the government punish someone for their refusal to accept harm to their body that would result in a saved fetus?

Where this overlaps with the pro life/pro choice I would say is in the question of the rights of a fetus. Where it differs is that a person choosing abortion is actively trying to eliminate the fetus, whereas this woman passively avoided surgery that would have saved the fetus.

I think I got that right, correct me if I am wrong. And I have to go sleep now before I pass out at my keyboard.