Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
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.

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

[russotto]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
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."[/i]

"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.

[Radar]

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.

[Pie]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
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!"...this pregnancy was not planned at all.

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.

[Troubleshooter]

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

[warch]

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.

[Brigliadore]

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.

[Radar]

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.

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?

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.

"Such ideas are outdated"; "He has oversimplified the problem"; "What would happen if everyone thought that way?"

These are typical examples of statements intended to avoid a rational discussion. When someone responds to you in this manner, it is almost always a sure sign that your thinking cap is on straight, because it indicates that you have made a logical statement for which he has no logical rebuttal. And if that is the case, do not allow yourself to be thrown off course.

[b]-Robert J. Ringer

"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin, more even than death. Thought...is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is...indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid"

[b]-Bertrand Russell

(hey I agree with Radar on this point! Zounds!)

*** GASP ***

As has been mention this woman admits to being mentally unbalanced.

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.

[ladysycamore]

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

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!

[Slartibartfast]

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.

[Radar]

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.

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!

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.

The parent/offspring relationship is a little more complex than just calling the offspring a parasite on its host.

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.

[Clodfobble]

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.

[ladysycamore]

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!

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".

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"

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Radar


Perhaps, but that sort of a relationship doesn't begin until after the birth has taken place.

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.

[Radar]

*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.

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.

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.

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.