Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by dar512


Ah. Therein lies the story. I have the feeling that many people choose childbirth as the threshold because it's easy, observable, and allows them to have closure on the issue. I don't buy it.

Carl Sagan (RIP) had an article on this subject based on the development of the fetus and so forth. It was a while ago, but I think he decided that the beginning of the second trimester was the magic crossover spot. I don't know about that, but I do think birth is too late.

He probably based it on the fact that that is, approximately, when the fetus runs the risk of surviving outside of the mother if removed early.

[Kitsune]

there seem to be a whole lot of sane people on the cellar of late.

Is that "sane" relative to the population or "sane" relative to just The Cellar? This is important because it certainly determines which group I fit in.

...or maybe not.

[dar512]

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.

You missed the subtext where Radar is the only rational being on the planet.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
huh?

It has been said several times throughout this thread that she had other c-sections and so should have known that they wouldn't have cut her from pelvic bone to breast bone. She is claiming she has never had a c-section before. So we have a woman who is hyped up on drugs being told she needs surgery and since she has never had it before I can understand how she may have misunderstood what the surgery consisted of (because the drugs aren't making her think straight).

[Radar]

if the vagina isn't a miracle portal, then I don't know WHAT is!

Amen!

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by warch
Perhaps the best thing would be for the government to require by law that all new life be created in vitro. Well monitored. Cleaner. Morally Crisp. None of that messy body threashold to deal with. (you could charge the lab tech that dropped the vial with murder- clearly)
And the government can penalize parents for not selecting the expertly defined "best" zygote for their offspring- because any crapshoot would be cruel to the new life. Or they could be fined or incarcerated for not producing a healthy female to balance out the projected census figures...

Did you ever see the movie Gattaca? What you described above is very like the whole movie.

[ladysycamore]

quote:Uh, no. What I did say was that I don't CARE about whether the fetus has rights or not. That's for the abortion debate.

If you don't care whether the fetus has rights, you don't care if someone gets rid of them or chooses not to have a c-section and one doesn't make it.

So wait: are you saying that just because I don't care about the issue of the right of the fetus that I should just not care about the mother making a choice that caused her fetus to die? Allll-righty then! LMAO! Wow.

quote:No. I DO want her to be punished in some way (and not necessarily with jail, etc.) There's something "not right" if people feel that she should just go along her merry little way like nothing happened.

No, but there is something very twisted and wrong about someone who thinks she shouldn't be allowed to go along her merry little way for making a decision abouther own body.

Hm...freedom of thought and having an opinion is now "twisted and wrong"...since when???

There is something extremely wrong about those who think someone should get any kind of punishment other than the own bad feelings they might feel towards themselves.

LOL, mmm'kay then.


quote:Since when did that stop anyone from being critical? Since we're talking about "rights", then everyone has the "right" to speak out, so I will continue to be critical of her choice .

Who said you didn't have the right to speak out or be critical? I said I wasn't going to be critical and that it's none of your business or mine or the government's.

You seemed to imply that since it was "none of my business" therefore I couldn't speak my mind about it (at least, that's how *I* read it). Plus, it's pretty redundant to keep saying how it's none of my business...I realize that, but again, I WILL continue to critize her decision. I'm sure things that are none of YOUR business doesn't stop YOU from being critical in some way. All anyone has to do is look up any number some of your more flamable posts and see for themselves.

quote:Argh, bite your tongue! I have no children, no do I plan on having any.

Pardon me. I presumed you had children due to your irrational attack against a woman who is illegally being arrested and taken to court for making a decision with regard to her own body. Let me take a moment to thank you for not having children.

*laughing* Oh the melodrama!!! You're quite welcome. Please allow me to strongly request that you do not further pollute the gene pool either.

Wow...I don't agree with what she did, and that's an "attack"...hm.....you sure like to redefine words doncha?

attack: 2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words.

Nah, that seems to be more *your* style.

At any rate, if you have such a problem with the Utah authorites arresting her, then you need to take issue with THEM, and not me. I didn't arrest her. All I'm doing is offering my opinion, which isn't going to affect what happens to her one damn bit. It's not like my opinion is somehow going to mystically travel to Utah and seal her fate for crying out loud! Sorry hon, I don't have that kind of power.

quote:This is interesing. So, this woman in Utah shouldn't suffer a similar "punishment" by you? What's the difference between her and the other two women? As far as I can see, they ALL made horrible choices and decisions about their children.

What's the difference? The two women I mentioned murdered their children coldly and violated the most sacred bond of all, that between a mother and her children. The woman in Utah didn't kill a child, period. She's not a murderer. Making such a ludicrous comparison is laughable.

Glad that you got a giggle out of that. Try laughing more often...it's good for one's character. :p

While I agree that the first two women did indeed murder their own children, I'm looking at it from the POV that each woman made piss-poor judgement calls that ended up with their offspring dead. I'm not saying that the Utah woman murdered her fetus, I'm saying that the choice that she made put the fetus at risk that led to its' death. If you are fine with her going on with her life with the possibility of doing it again, GREAT! WONDERFUL! That is certainly your prerogative, just as is it mine to say that I think/feel that what she did was wrong and irresponsible.

Look: as far as I know (as of this posting), nothing's been decided yet, so in the meantime, calm the hell down, and if what the authorities decide doesn't sit well with you, then you are more than welcome to take a trip to Utah to express your feelings about the matter.

[Slartibartfast]

Case __

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

---

Slarti ___

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

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


How so?

Placing this threshold someplace too far up a human's timeline means that you might be killing a bona fide person. For example, the fifth birthday is obviously way too high up the timeline. I am saying when you place a threshold for something so significant as being a full fledged human being, it is better to make a mistake towards the conservative side than run the risk of misclassifying a person as a non-person.

(oh, I can here radar now... 'but its NOT a person')

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
Placing this threshold someplace too far up a human's timeline means that you might be killing a bona fide person. For example, the fifth birthday is obviously way too high up the timeline. I am saying when you place a threshold for something so significant as being a full fledged human being, it is better to make a mistake towards the conservative side than run the risk of misclassifying a person as a non-person.

(oh, I can here radar now... 'but its NOT a person')

Just checking, I hate having to infer too much form a small post when I'm not entirely sure how to angle people's posts. I don't know all of you well enough yet.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Just checking, I hate having to infer too much form a small post when I'm not entirely sure how to angle people's posts. I don't know all of you well enough yet.

But there's really only two or three of us here. We just use a lot of different logins.

[lumberjim]

this is me again.....it's my most annoying login

[warch]

Did you ever see the movie Gattaca?

Yeah. recently too. I didnt realize! I suppose that and a lot of genetic engineering, reproductive bioethics talk at work. Gene(sis)

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
Case __

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

---

Slarti ___

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



Placing this threshold someplace too far up a human's timeline means that you might be killing a bona fide person. For example, the fifth birthday is obviously way too high up the timeline. I am saying when you place a threshold for something so significant as being a full fledged human being, it is better to make a mistake towards the conservative side than run the risk of misclassifying a person as a non-person.

(oh, I can here radar now... 'but its NOT a person')

And if you take it far enough, you end up with the practice of outlawing birth control and criminalizing male masturbation (Onanism).

Of course, people protesting this will have to have bumber stickers with "They'll take my Penthouse away when they pry it from my cold, KY-covered hands".

[wolf]

In a side-related matter, I got an article in my newsmax.com newsalerts this morning.

Seems as though the Vatican thinks that since per Il Papa conception begins at the time of fertilization all fertilized embryos are people and you're committing a sin to destroy them, implanted or not.

Interestingly, although this statement declares embryos as human, the church also considers fertilization of an egg that is not part of the 'conjugal union' to be a sin.

Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't here ...

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by wolf

Seems as though the Vatican thinks that since per Il Papa conception begins at the time of fertilization all fertilized embryos are people and you're committing a sin to destroy them, implanted or not.

DINGDINGDING! But this is not a new position

From a Catholic religion point of view, the soul is present from the moment of conception. That rules out all abortion (even ones in the cases of rape and incest) on the argument that it is an innocent fully human being that is destroyed.

Now if the mother needs life-saving surgery that would indirectly kill the fetus, that is allowed as long as the killing of the fetus is not a direct act.

With in-vitro fertilization, I had heard from Catholic sources that it was not allowed as there is a step where several egg cells are fertilized, and only the ones that look like they are developing properly are implanted, in effect aborting all the others.

obviously stem cell research is right out with this POV.

Wolf____
Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't here ...
------------

I don't catch what you mean here wolf. Damned if you do what, or if you don't do what?

Richlevy___
And if you take it far enough, you end up with the practice of outlawing birth control and criminalizing male masturbation (Onanism).
---------------

let's all sing together a verse from the book of Python...

every sperm is sac-red, every sperm is great
if a sperm is was-ted, God gets quite irate...

This is an exaggeration, but its a very funny one.