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.