Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[ladysycamore]

quote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

I can appreciate your anger as a mother.

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

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.

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.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Moms are required to maintain such and similar delusions about their children. It's a survival trait.

You know what? You ARE cool..for real!

*doesn't play around with compliments*

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


You know what? You ARE cool..for real!

*doesn't play around with compliments*

Thank you.

[Troubleshooter]

Hey, Lumberjim.

[warch]

This general discussion reminds me of when we talked about refusing to serve a pregnant woman a drink. I would refuse to serve. But I would not desire law enforcement arrest her and charge her with a crime. I would not restrain and imprison her for the term of her pregnancy, force her under the control of government sanctioned treatment, have her sterilized, nor cut her open without her consent, no matter what is going on inside. Her envelope of skin. Her insides. Her body, her domain -until the baby is on the outside by her choice or by biological timing.

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...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by warch
(you could charge the lab tech that dropped the vial with murder- clearly)

Nope, negligence unless you can prove malice aforethought.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by Radar

... 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.

[Emphasis added by me]

That's pretty sick. For someone who claims to hold natural law and its expression in the Constitution in such high regard, you sure seem to have a callous disregard for the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. I also recall in a thread a few months ago that you had called for the ebola-enhanced, shattered-glass anal enema for President Bush.

Your fascination with extreme torture is... well... interesting and a little unsettling. Since you do not mention it as a remedy to any observed inadaquacies in the justice system and given the carefully crafted and downright gleeful descriptions you have provided here and elsewhere, I gather that this is just something that would give you great personal satisfaction to either witness or personally administer.

Fortunately, we do have a legal system that stands between convicted criminals and those who would have their way with them.

edited to attribute the quote - no other changes

[Radar]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. It's like saying a guy who trips and falls off the grand canyon by accident is the same as someone who commits suicide by jumping off or the same as someone who was pushed off.

[Radar]

That's pretty sick. For someone who claims to hold natural law and its expression in the Constitution in such high regard, you sure seem to have a callous disregard for the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

In my opinion it's not cruel, especially when compared to how she treated her children, and I'd be willing to use this on several of the most vicious and heinous murderers out there. The rule is that punishment must be cruel AND unusual so a punishment might be unsual or cruel and still be Constitutional.

I also recall in a thread a few months ago that you had called for the ebola-enhanced, shattered-glass anal enema for President Bush.

I know. I was being nice on him back then. He deserves far worse now.

Your fascination with extreme torture is... well... interesting and a little unsettling.

What can I say, some people are interested in collecting stamps; I'm interested in torture.

Since you do not mention it as a remedy to any observed inadaquacies in the justice system and given the carefully crafted and downright gleeful descriptions you have provided here and elsewhere, I gather that this is just something that would give you great personal satisfaction to either witness or personally administer.

What can I say? Some people just need killing and are so vile, a standard killing won't provide adequate justice for their actions. I can tell you without being ashamed in the slightest, that I would be genuinely happy if George W. Bush were rightly convicted of treason and I were given the opportunity to pull the switch.

Fortunately, we do have a legal system that stands between convicted criminals and those who would have their way with them.

I agree. I do offer the presumption of innocence to those being tried in a court of law who I personally don't know whether or not they committed a crime. I know the two women I mentioned committed the crime, they admitted it themselves and the punishment I suggested would be adequate justice. Bush deserves something far worse.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Hey, Lumberjim.

....just fucking around, popeye.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by lumberjim


....just fucking around, popeye.

Good thing my ego is so prodigious as to withstand such a puny assault as yours isn't it?

[dar512]

Originally posted by Radar

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.

Citation please.

[lumberjim]

Good thing my ego is so prodigious as to withstand such a puny assault as yours isn't it?

indeed. A strong Ego has ever been the best defense against good intentioned ribbing. I was reading an old luvbugz thread, and to watch how she would manufacture offense in a thread was quite disturbing.

there seem to be a whole lot of sane people on the cellar of late. present company excepted, naturally. Radar is a serviceable loon, but he really makes too much sense to really get (most) people fired up. we could use a good contrarian or restless agitator.

guess i'm just feeling frisky

oh, and:

cougar said:
You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal

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



---thanks, i'm here all week.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by lumberjim


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

And that's no shit.

[dar512]

Originally posted by case
There has to be a threshold somewhere.

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.