Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[Radar]

radar, i have officially added you to my buddy list. you make a lot of sense. it's a shame you have a rep as a looney.

Thank you very much. I'll add you to mine also.

And as far has being called a looney, it's fairly common for those who have run out of gas in a debate and been backed into a corner with no escape from the facts to try to dismiss you as being a "looney" rather than trying to come up with an intelligent, logical, cogent argument to prove their side.

This is less painful to them than just admitting I'm right.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Radar

Arresting people who have not committed a crime is not their job, so they weren't doing their job but were in fact violating the rights of another, which is...you guessed it.....a crime.

Endangering a fetus is a crime, if it were not, then she would have been released immediately.

Originally posted by Radar

No it doesn't. Common sense follows natural law which dictates that we each own our own bodies and everything in them. We each have sole decision making power over our bodies, minds, and lives and can do anything we want with them. Common sense doesn't seem very common with you.

To quote Mark Twain, "Common sense ain't." Natural law actually dicates nothing about rights per se.

"To summarize: the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God; (2) it is naturally authoritative over all human beings; and (3) it is naturally knowable by all human beings. Further, it holds that (4) the good is prior to the right, that (5) right action is action that responds nondefectively to the good, that (6) there are a variety of ways in which action can be defective with respect to the good, and that (7) some of these ways can be captured and formulated as general rules."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Originally posted by Radar

First there is no such thing as an "unborn child". Up until the second they are born, they are a fetus (not a child) and a fetus is not entitled to rights. Second, nobody's rights entitle them to be able to force you to go through surgery, including a fetus if they had rights.

I will agree but with strong reservations. The line between rights and consideration blur in a situation such as this and to dismiss the need to care for a future person is, I think, terribly shortsighted.

Originally posted by Radar

Our rights end where another person's (a fetus is not a person) begin. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. We are each BORN (not before birth) with rights and that rights includes the right to defend our own lives. If a woman were to swallow a live grenade (impressive throat control), it would be no different than taking out a gun and trying to kill people and those whom she was trying to kill would have the natural right to destroy her.

Are you deriving your opinion about the stark difference between the fetus and the child from an established paradigm or is this self-generated? If you're reading it somewhere I'd be interested in reading it myself.

A link would be sufficient.

Originally posted by Radar

I like the handcuffing to a pole and running away answer.

I do too.

Originally posted by Radar

The situation was different because the woman in the hospital did not violate the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting other.

Again this is a sort of grey area, a lack of consent is not dissent. Also, there are circumstances where people incapable of giving consent have both had treatment witheld as well as given. Circumstances vary.

Originally posted by Radar

quote:1) Do you think a fetus should have rights?

Absolutely not. That would be saying that a parasite has rights above the host.

No, it wouldn't. Rights operate on a variable scale.

Originally posted by Radar

quote:A fetus has a unique set of genes.

Life is not defined by strands of DNA. Life is defined by sentience and by birth.

So monkeys, dogs, cats, spiders, trees, etc. are not alive?

Originally posted by Radar

Until the moment of birth, a fetus is a parasite. I know it sounds cold, but it's the truth. To say a fetus not only has rights but that those rights are above the mother's is to say that a parasite has rights and those rights supercede the hosts. In other words, if you have a tapeworm (which has entirely different DNA), the tapeworm has rights and those rights are above yours.

While technically true for the duration of the gestation period, over the lives of the host and the progeny it becomes a case symbiosis.

Originally posted by Radar

quote:A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth. Is one more human than the other?

There is no baby one day before birth. Up until the moment of birth, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, they are very different. In one case the parasite is within the host, and in the next they have ceased being a parasite (at least in the same sense of the word) and are living outside of other beings.

While I agree that sometimes arbitrary boundaries are necessary, I think that this one may be a bit too much. An organism that doesn't take some precautions for the future is going to have a slim time of it.

Originally posted by Radar

quote: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.

The draft is a direct violation of our rights and a violation of the limited Constitutional authority of the U.S. Government. I hope you're not trying to use this violation of human rights as an excuse to violate the rights of others like pregnant women.

While conscription has been shown to be of questionable success it is still a common, and apparently acceptable situation. Comparing the two situations does nothing to further argument in either direction.

Originally posted by Radar

quote:so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

Funny eh? Let me guess? Pro death penalty? Life is sacred until you're born. After that they don't give a shit about you. As long as there is a steady stream of people to get shot at, everything will be fine.

You didn't answer the question and are also minimizing the sanctity that people have for the sacrifices of dead service people since the beginning of recorded time.

Originally posted by Radar

quote:This is called being a "Republican".

Sorry, but Democrats support the draft too. Hillary Clinton and many democrats are pushing to re-instate the draft. Both of the major parties think government has more of a claim on our lives than we do.

I don't trust politicians as a matter of course. They're a whole different species of person.

Originally posted by Radar

quote: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

All people are born with the same rights regardless of where they are born. The only thing that changes from location to location is which of your rights are protected, and which are violated.

I don't agree that foreigners should have the same constitutional rights as a tax paying citizen.

And as far as the over-arching rights thing goes, see my argument towards the beginning.

What books do you read?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
While I agree that sometimes arbitrary boundaries are necessary, I think that this one may be a bit too much. An organism that doesn't take some precautions for the future is going to have a slim time of it.

That's not likely to be an issue. Remember - this story made the news.

I don't agree that foreigners should have the same constitutional rights as a tax paying citizen.

They should have the same constitutional rights, because the Constitution is a set of restrictions on government power, not an enumeration of US citizen rights. They shouldn't get all of the benefits of government services, unless they pay US taxes, though.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by jinx


Make people feel better about what?

To make people feel better about killing unborn children.

Consider the way a person would react to the following statments:

"I terminated the fetus parasitically attached to me."

"I killed the baby growing inside me".

Lets call it for what it is: Killing the baby. Why couch it in different terms? Because it doesn't "sound as bad" if you use different words.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Radar
This is less painful to them than just admitting I'm right.

Yeah, I get that a lot myself.

*cough*

But seriously, you've made a lot of excellent points... Your views on this matter are alarmingly similar to my own . You've just managed to express yours more eloquently.

Whether the knife is a switchblade or a scalpel, a mother is never legally required to put herself in front of one to save her child, unborn or otherwise. Sure, it's morally reprehensible to put a child in grave danger for one's own piddly concerns, but individuals can make decisions about, and pay the consequences for, what happens to one's own person.

In this instance, I think a charge ending with "endangerment" or "neglect" would be good, if for no other purpose than to remove her children from their self-serving mother, and to prevent her from having even more kids.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
To make people feel better about killing unborn children.

Consider the way a person would react to the following statments:

"I terminated the fetus parasitically attached to me."

"I killed the baby growing inside me".

You're doing the same thing, in the other direction, to make people feel worse about terminating fetuses.

[Kitsune]

Up until the second they are born, they are a fetus (not a child) and a fetus is not entitled to rights.

So the moment the living being touches air outside of the womb, they are a child? What if the child is born really early, but is still dependant on machines for life, much as a fetus/parasite? I find it odd that until the umbilical cord is cut, a "fetus" is not a "person" despite having all the physical and technical requirements for being one. Once outside the body, the child is still just as dependant on its mother for survival as it was when it was inside her body.

Common sense follows natural law which dictates that we each own our own bodies and everything in them.

Where are you getting this from? From what are you basing "natural law"? From what most everyone else is telling me, our laws in this country are Christian-based.

[OnyxCougar]

It's not a matter of what I'm trying to make them feel. What they feel is not the issue.

I've had two abortions. I've killed 2 children. Whether I call them fetuses or babies is irrelevant. There are 2 less human beings in the world because of my actions. I am a murderer, just as sure as Travis is.

The difference is that that law says I can kill babies that are under a certain age. And that's the only difference. The babies are still dead, wither it's 3 days before birth or 3 days after.

I just think we need to stop trying to make it sound anything other than what it is.


edit: I am pro-choice, up to a point. That point is where the baby can survive if removed from the mother.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx


Why would you assume that parents aren't questioned just as hard? Just because you don't experience it?

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?").

Putting your child in harms way is incredibly subjective. What you may see as harm (not vaccinating your kids) others see as protection.

But are you going to be committing a crime if you choose not to vaccinate your kids? You chose not vaccinate your kids, right? You're not in jail, so...where's the crime?

What you may not see as harm (giving kids soda and McGarbage) other would.

Again, not a crime (although, not good common sense either).

Because one doesn't have as much faith in obstetrics as others, they are questioned. But they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Sorry, I just feel there's a certain responsibilty once one finds out they are pregnant to put the child/fetus/zygote's welfare above their own. Never mind that the C-Section is going to leave a scar!

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Sorry, I just feel there's a certain responsibilty once one finds out they are pregnant to put the child/fetus/zygote's welfare above their own. :

why?

it's your right to feel that way, but can you incarcerate someone who does not share this belief?

not many will admit it, but most would put their own survival in front of EVERYONE else's. It's how we're wired. survival instincts. at some point, i think that shifts and is eclipsed by our genetic yearning to continue our blood line ( the only true immortality) and we would sacrifice ourself to save our offspring. But, i don't think this shift occurs until the child has a personality.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Sorry, I just feel there's a certain responsibilty once one finds out they are pregnant to put the child/fetus/zygote's welfare above their own. Never mind that the C-Section is going to leave a scar!

Agreed, but in that one is morally responsible to do so, NOT legally.

Edit: ...of course, putting one's own life after a cluster of cells which wouldn't survive on it's own would be silly, so I partially agree, with the caveat that the fetus must be developed to the point where it can be saved should the mother die.

As an exercise in testing where one measures the boundaries of an individual's rights... say there are a pair of conjoined twins who have grown into adulthood. A life-threatening condition develops in twin A which requires a surgical procedure only available in another country. Twin B refuses to travel to that country for his/her own reasons, and likewise refuses to be surgically separated. He/she cannot be convinced to do otherwise of his/her own volition.

Which of the following is MOST morally correct?:

A. Twin A is out of luck.
B. Twin B should be forced to travel to the country so twin A can undergo the surgery.
C. The twins should be surgically separated against Twin B's wishes, so that Twin A may get the life-saving surgery on his/her own.

Not that I really should be feeding this beast of a debate.. heheh. *cough*

[jinx]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


Lets call it for what it is: Killing the baby. Why couch it in different terms? Because it doesn't "sound as bad" if you use different words.
[/color]

Because different terms are incorrect. It is a fetus. That is the correct term.

And again, she did't kill the fetus (by refusing surgery), the fetus was unable to survive to term inside the womb.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by jinx


Because different terms are incorrect. It is a fetus. That is the correct term.

And again, she did't kill the fetus (by refusing surgery), the fetus was unable to survive to term inside the womb.

that's it in a nutshell.

if there WAS no doctor available, natural selection would not have selcted that child for survival. sucks, but that's the deal.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by lumberjim


why?

it's your right to feel that way, but can you incarcerate someone who does not share this belief?

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)???

not many will admit it, but most would put their own survival in front of EVERYONE else's. It's how we're wired. survival instincts. at some point, i think that shifts and is eclipsed by our genetic yearning to continue our blood line ( the only true immortality) and we would sacrifice ourself to save our offspring. But, i don't think this shift occurs until the child has a personality.

I guess I find it hard to believe that if someone tells me how much they wanted a child, and then proceeds to put the health and welfare of that child in jeopardy.

[Kitsune]

Because different terms are incorrect. It is a fetus. That is the correct term.

Just to make it more fun, lets call 'em "human beings" regardless if they exist in the womb, are a larva, pupae, worm, adult, whatever.

And again, she did't kill the fetus (by refusing surgery), the fetus was unable to survive to term inside the womb.

I like this logic.

"That man drowned when he fell in the water! Why didn't you jump in and save him?"

"Eh, sorry -- he just couldn't survive once in the water."

That, right there, is some outstanding natural law: The ability to survive on your own!