Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus
By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

5:55 AM PST, March 12, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY — As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.

Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.

<img src="http://cellar.org/2004/woman.jpg">

Age 28 and so full of promise.

How she looks isn't the issue. The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body. She is clearly not guilty of murder and the person who charged her with murder should go to prison and be gang raped in the shower.

Originally posted by Radar
How she looks isn't the issue.

I agree.

Originally posted by Radar
The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body.

This part on the other hand is central to the growing debate of when abortion/fetucide occurs.

If a man can be charged with a felony for causing a woman to lose a viable fetus why can't a woman be charged with causing the death of a similarly viable fetus?

Originally posted by Radar
She is clearly not guilty of murder

Based on what criteria?

Originally posted by Radar
and the person who charged her with murder should go to prison and be gang raped in the shower.

Something I'd like to recommend is a little less ad hominum assault. It doesn't bother me personally, but it does detract from the strength of your arguments

Originally posted by Radar
How she looks isn't the issue. The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body. She is clearly not guilty of murder and the person who charged her with murder should go to prison and be gang raped in the shower.

We're not talking about a three week old clump of cells here. These were fully developed BABIES that could survive outside the womb, they just needed to be let out. Does a mother have any responsibility to a baby that is about to come to term?

Now her statement to a nurse about the hospital wanting to cut her all the way up the middle makes me think she just didn't 'get' what a c-section is, or she may not be playing with a full deck - probably a bit of both.

She doesn't deserve jail, she deserves a lot of therapy.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Now her statement to a nurse about the hospital wanting to cut her all the way up the middle makes me think she just didn't 'get' what a c-section is, or she may not be playing with a full deck - probably a bit of both.

She doesn't deserve jail, she deserves a lot of therapy.

Nope, I've had it to the teeth with people needing therapy.

If it's true that she has other children then I'm more worried about them at this point.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
If a man can be charged with a felony for causing a woman to lose a viable fetus why can't a woman be charged with causing the death of a similarly viable fetus?

Because the fetus is hers. Similarly, theft is a crime, but disposal is not.

Just a thought...

If she were a Christian Scientist, and refused medical attention on religious grounds (obviously she's not, since she went to the doctor in the first place, but let's just SAY for the sake of argument since arguing is what we do best) this would not be an issue.

I say if one woman is legally allowed to refuse a C-section because of religious beliefs, then another should be allowed to refuse it because of cosmetic beliefs. Whether they BOTH should be allowed is another issue, but consistency is the key.

Because the fetus is hers.

Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers. I'VE had it to the teeth with people thinking only women have children.

But I do suspect in this case the father agreed with whatever she wanted.

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Just a thought...

If she were a Christian Scientist, and refused medical attention on religious grounds (obviously she's not, since she went to the doctor in the first place, but let's just SAY for the sake of argument since arguing is what we do best) this would not be an issue.

Which is something I have an issue with.

Originally posted by Clodfobble

I say if one woman is legally allowed to refuse a C-section because of religious beliefs, then another should be allowed to refuse it because of cosmetic beliefs. Whether they BOTH should be allowed is another issue, but consistency is the key.

I agree. People really need to get their shit in one sock.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Nope, I've had it to the teeth with people needing therapy.

Then what should be done to her, dump her in jail five to life? Her act did not come from a criminal mentality, it came from a fucked up mentality.



If it's true that she has other children then I'm more worried about them at this point.


Agreed.

Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers.

Well, she could have kept half, I guess.

[COLOR=indigo]She did. One of the twins made it.[/COLOR]

OC, you just made my day. :D

[COLOR=indigo]**tips her hat** just doing my job, dwellar.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers. I'VE had it to the teeth with people thinking only women have children.

I'm partly in agreement, in theory, but the fact is that the woman is the one facing surgery. I don't think that the father should be able to force or veto any medical procedures on the mother against her will. Once the baby is born, I support half-and-half, but until then the woman needs the final word.

Ah, you've gotta love Utah.

[size=1]*cough*[/size]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Nope, I've had it to the teeth with people needing therapy.

Hmm, I wasn't aware that our country had a pre-determined allotment of help that we're allowed to give mentally unbalanced people. And it's measured by the height of your teeth, no less? If you want to make the argument that you're sick of people using therapy when it's not necessary, I'm right there with you. I'm no therapy-and-medication pusher... far from it... but I do know that it IS necessary for a few troubled people. To say that nobody should get therapy because you're tired of it is a bit misguided.

I think Slarti nailed it on the head... the woman is probably a couple of tacos short of a combination plate. Imprisonment will only make her existing mental problems worse, and nobody will be served by that.

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Because the fetus is hers.

Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers. I'VE had it to the teeth with people thinking only women have children.

But I do suspect in this case the father agreed with whatever she wanted.

i've had it to the teeth with people having it to the teeth.

[COLOR=indigo]However, I think an investigation needs to be done since she's more concerned with her *ahem* appearance rather then the welfare of her children. Therefore, I'm concerned about how she treats her other children.

I'm in favor of pro-choice, up until the point the fetii are viable outside the womb. That baby would have lived if it were only let out. Yes, a woman has control over her own body. But why is it that once the baby is born it's murder, but up until that moment it's "choice"? So, during the early stages of labor is it a baby (murder) or a fetus (choice)?
[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Radar
How she looks isn't the issue. The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body.

Originally posted by Radar, in the Freedom thread, Philosophy forum
Freedom is the ability to do ANYTHING you choose as long as your actions don't PYSICALLY harm or endanger the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other.

[color=indigo]
Like kill a non-consenting baby that could have survived?
[/color]

Primarily because the law needs an arbitrary point at which to make the distinction. And personally, I am mighty leery of the concept of a governmental requirement for any medical procedure, especially surgery.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I'm partly in agreement, in theory, but the fact is that the woman is the one facing surgery. I don't think that the father should be able to force or veto any medical procedures on the mother against her will. Once the baby is born, I support half-and-half, but until then the woman needs the final word.

How many men out there have had their lives ruined by forced, aggregious, child-support since only women have a say?

And still not get visitation?

I don't know if she should be charged with murder, but definitely guilty of severe selfishness, and IMO, reckless endangerment.

"The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life." "

*head explode* WTF?? How was that going to ruin her life? :confused:

The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body.

Yes she made a decision, but one that put the fate of her children at risk. IMO (quite strongly), once a woman finds out she is pregnant, and decides to keep the baby, then she should do whatever it takes to make sure that the welfare and health of the unborn child is damned near perfect. She was told several times that the fate of her unborn children was at risk if she did not get a C-section. She willingly chose not to have the procedure, and now one of her twins is dead. She'll have to live with that for the rest of her life. And what about the live twin? For that child to find out that his/her mother chose to go against the doctor's orders, just for the sake of VANITY! Goddamn..just when you think you've heard it all, and that people can't get more thoughtless! :mad:

"The case could affect abortion rights..."

Mother fuck! If that even happens... :angry: :rattat:

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Ah, you've gotta love Utah.

[size=1]*cough*[/size]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that our country had a pre-determined allotment of help that we're allowed to give mentally unbalanced people.

You should look at medicaid numbers. You might be surprised.

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
And it's measured by the height of your teeth, no less? If you want to make the argument that you're sick of people using therapy when it's not necessary, I'm right there with you.

Good to go.

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
I'm no therapy-and-medication pusher... far from it... but I do know that it IS necessary for a few troubled people. To say that nobody should get therapy because you're tired of it is a bit misguided.

After a year at a psychiatric facility you learn who is truly sick and who needs a boot in the ass. Most people just need a boot in the ass.

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
I think Slarti nailed it on the head... the woman is probably a couple of tacos short of a combination plate. Imprisonment will only make her existing mental problems worse, and nobody will be served by that.

This is conjecture but, she probably has a long history of problems but was allowed to continue with minimal or no help.

This is quite possibly similar to that woman in Texas who killed all of her kids who had a gaggle of kids, a gaggle of problems, etc.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


We're not talking about a three week old clump of cells here. These were fully developed BABIES that could survive outside the womb, they just needed to be let out. Does a mother have any responsibility to a baby that is about to come to term?

Now her statement to a nurse about the hospital wanting to cut her all the way up the middle makes me think she just didn't 'get' what a c-section is, or she may not be playing with a full deck - probably a bit of both.

She doesn't deserve jail, she deserves a lot of therapy.

I heard on the news that she had had two C-sections done already, so if in the event this is true, then she should have known what the procedure would have entailed. (I could be wrong in what I heard, so if someone has news to the contrary, please post..TIA).

Major therapy is in high order here.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
How many men out there have had their lives ruined by forced, aggregious, child-support since only women have a say?

And still not get visitation?

As I said, once it's out, it's half-and-half. Therefore, the man is responsible for support. But I agree that [legally required] support is often excessive, and visitation is too often denied. That's a different issue.

We own our own bodies regardless of whether or not there is a fetus growing inside of us. We each have sole dominion over our bodies, minds, and lives, and nobody including government has any legitimate authority to tell someone else what they must or must not do with thier body.

She was willing to let the fetus out, but not at the cost of having herself cut. She, and she alone has decision making power over her body and should not be punished under any circumstances for choosing not to go through surgery whether or not something growing inside her would live or not.

She is under no obligation to go through surgery and government has no legitimate authority to make her or to punish her if she doesn't.

To say she should be punished for choosing not to have surgery (regardless of what occurred as a result of that decision) is to say that we are slaves and the government has more claim on our bodies, minds, and labor than we do for ourselves. In other words we the people are property and our owner is the government.

Of course the reality is that government is the servant and we the people are its masters. And the powers granted to government are very limited in scope.

As I said, once it's out, it's half-and-half. Therefore, the man is responsible for support. But I agree that [legally required] support is often excessive, and visitation is too often denied. That's a different issue.

Ahhh... the definition of half-and-half is the woman has custody and the man has visitation? How very draconian. When the day comes when the two parents are equally considered for custody in the first place instead of the farce that goes on now, only then will it be half-and-half.

What--do I sound bitter? ;)

Originally posted by Radar
We own our own bodies regardless of whether or not there is a fetus growing inside of us. We each have sole dominion over our bodies, minds, and lives, and nobody including government has any legitimate authority to tell someone else what they must or must not do with thier body.

Ok, so it's perfectly fine to decide that you want to have a baby, only to put it's life in jeopardy right before it was born for vanity reasons?

She was willing to let the fetus out, but not at the cost of having herself cut. She, and she alone has decision making power over her body and should not be punished under any circumstances for choosing not to go through surgery whether or not something growing inside her would live or not.

Tell that to the twin that lived. Don't expect him or her to feel the same way.

She is under no obligation to go through surgery and government has no legitimate authority to make her or to punish her if she doesn't.

"To make her"...no. "to punish her"...yes. Even if the charge isn't murder, it'll be something else, and rightfully so.

To say she should be punished for choosing not to have surgery (regardless of what occurred as a result of that decision) is to say that...

She was irresponsible.

...we are slaves and the government has more claim on our bodies, minds, and labor than we do for ourselves. In other words we the people are property and our owner is the government.

A woman isn't forced to be pregnant...that is her choice. She also must take on the responsibility to put that unborn child's needs FIRST above her OWN, and if that means get the damned C-section if the doctor strongly recommends it!

Of course the reality is that government is the servant and we the people are its masters. And the powers granted to government are very limited in scope.

Well then, she also had the choice to NOT become pregnant if the "horrors" of pregnancy and all that comes with it was too much to bear. Nothing's been decided yet.

Failure to prevent a death, even if you can do so, does not make you a killer. If I know CPR, and I see you dying, and yet I don't do anything to save you, I have not killed you. I simply have not used my abilities to save you. However, had I actually attempted to save you, and stopped giving you CPR before more help arrives, I can (or could anyway, at the time I had my origional CPR training) be held accountable for your death. Just because I can save your life, doesn't mean I have to.

Which is why you'd better never start to choke to death or stop breathing around me. Because if you do, you're going to end up pushing up dasies.

Quzah.

More information comes to light...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0312042utah1.html

She did eventually have the emergency C-section, but it was too late for the one twin who was already dead (which the doctors already knew at that point, they were just trying to save the other one). She's being charged with child endangerment (not murder,) and not because she didn't want the C-section but because the surviving twin tested positive for cocaine and alcohol. In addition to that, she admitted to smoking pot while pregnant and in fact kept demanding to go outside and smoke a cigarette first before they could begin the C-section.

(edit: oops, sorry--she's simply ALSO being charged with child endangerment of the second one. She's still being charged with murder.)

She should claim religion. She could say it's her religious belief that it be natural. It was the will of god, or what not, that the child live if it were meant to live, and die if it were meant to die.

How is this any different than people who say they'll pray for their kid to get better, rather than use the latest (or even old) medical treatments to ensure that it get better? There's people that forgo medical treatment that would guarantee their survival, because it's their belief that they shouldn't do so.

How is this different? No, she probably doesn't believe that, but she could claim it, and the end result would be the same.

Or, she could claim something along the lines of natural selection. Though I doubt people would like this. But basicly, the child wasn't strong enough, lucky enough, whatever enough for it to survive in nature. In nature, there is no such thing as a C-section.

Anyway...

Utah? She's fucked. Again. I slay me. I really do.

Quzah.

Originally posted by Clodfobble
She's being charged with child endangerment (not murder,) and not because she didn't want the C-section but because the surviving twin tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.

Cocaine aside, the surviving child is going to be one fucked up kid.

Mom, from prison: "Hi daughter."
Daughter: "Now tell me again why I don't have a [brother/sister]?"
Mom: "Well I didn't really feel like having a C-section. Sorry."

Fucked up I tell you. That kid will need some serious therapy.

Quzah.

A murder charge in this scenario is stupid, even with the additional details Clodfobble provided via thesmokinggun.com. Wreckless Endangerment, sure. But murder? No.

But, it IS Utah, the (self-)righteousness capital of the US. Damn Utahns. [size=1]*cough*[/size]

Radar, Hmm, so the government (funded by us) has no right to stop a woman from smoking or drinking during her pregnancy, but then the government (again our $$$) has to later spend money on the child because of all sorts of physical and mental damage the kid ends up with.


I guess to be fair, the governement should tell parents of fetal alcohol syndrom kids that it's their problem and no help will be given, let them handle it themselves. The school system is not going to treat that child any different than a normal one, because it would be unfair to all the other parents to have to pay for the consequences of the free choices taken by the one parent.

Originally posted by quzah
Which is why you'd better never start to choke to death or stop breathing around me. Because if you do, you're going to end up pushing up dasies.
Quzah.

Quzah the humanitarian has spoken.

BTW it's "daisies".

Originally posted by dar512
Quzah the humanitarian has spoken.

BTW it's "daisies".

Humanitarian? Where'd you ever get that idea? Here you go.

On a side note, I can't keep speeling everything right. You'd have nothing to do around here.

Quzah.

Originally posted by quzah

Humanitarian? Where'd you ever get that idea?

I was being ironic.



Roxanne Kowalski: I was being ironic.
C.D. Bales: Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at.

How is that ironic? Or did you mean ironic in the sense of "He knows CPR, but won't use it?"

Which again, isn't ironic. It's actually quite fitting to the topic at hand. She knew that a C-section would save the kid, but she opted not to use it.

Perhaps ironic in the sense of likes animals, doesn't care about people? Which really isn't ironic either. I donno. I just don't see the irony.

Quzah.

Originally posted by quzah
How is that ironic? Or did you mean ironic in the sense of "He knows CPR, but won't use it?"

Some people (incorrectly) use the word "ironic" interchangably with "sarcastic." I believe dar512 meant "sarcastic."

Is it ironic to define sarcasm? [size=1]*cough*[/size]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

Some people (incorrectly) use the word "ironic" interchangably with "sarcastic." I believe dar512 meant "sarcastic."

Which in itself would be hilarious, coming from a post where "Conan the Grammarian" corrected my spelling. :D It may or may not not be irony, but it would definately be hilarity.

Quzah.

Ok, so it's perfectly fine to decide that you want to have a baby, only to put it's life in jeopardy right before it was born for vanity reasons?

I didn't say it was perfectly fine. I think it's a stupid and selfish decision, but it's her decision to make and nobody can make it for her. Nor may anyone punish her for choosing what to do with her own body. The death of a child is unfortuate, but does not justify government intervention into this woman's sole dominion over her own body. It is my personal opinion that such selfish people should not have children, but that doesn't mean the government should prevent it or get involved. It only means everyone would be better off if they didn't have kids. The one that died is most likely the luckier of the two. She can base her stupid decision on vanity, or the direction of the wind for that matter and it doesn't give anyone else claim over her body including something growing inside her.

Tell that to the twin that lived. Don't expect him or her to feel the same way.

I don't care how they feel. Their feelings don't matter, nor do yours, mine, or the combined feelings of everyone on earth other than the person whose body it is.

"To make her"...no. "to punish her"...yes. Even if the charge isn't murder, it'll be something else, and rightfully so.

Wrong. The only criminal here is the one who charged her with any crime at all. She not only should get away without a single punishment, she should get a lot of money for being wrongly arrested.

She was irresponsible.

Perhaps. In my opinion she made a poor decision, but government isn't here to punish us for our poor decision with our own bodies or anything growing inside them. Government has no say in the matter.

She also must take on the responsibility to put that unborn child's needs FIRST above her OWN, and if that means get the damned C-section if the doctor strongly recommends it!

Says who? You? She alone decides whose needs come first and who has the greatest claim on her body. Not you, not me, the father, or the government. Since it's her body she can decide that her needs come first and are above those of an unborn fetus inside her.

Well then, she also had the choice to NOT become pregnant if the "horrors" of pregnancy and all that comes with it was too much to bear. Nothing's been decided yet.

Yes, the choice is hers (not yours) to become pregnant, to remain pregnant, and whether or not to have a C-Section regardless of what happens as a result. And nobody on earth or anywhere else has any legitimate authority to tell her she can't make that decision or to punish her for anything that happens as a result of her decisions pertaining to her body.

The use of cocaine again is a personal decision which again is her decision to make regardless of whether or not she has a fetus or other parasite inside of her. Again, I think it's a poor decision, but it's irrelevant to the major topic at hand which is her decision not to have a C-Section

Radar, Hmm, so the government (funded by us) has no right to stop a woman from smoking or drinking during her pregnancy, but then the government (again our $$$) has to later spend money on the child because of all sorts of physical and mental damage the kid ends up with.

Yes, the government (regardless of who funds it) has no right to stop any woman from smoking, drinking, or using any drug during her pregnancy and the government also has no right to take our money to pay for the healthcare of anyone regardless of who they are. Nobody is entitled to anything they didn't pay for (or otherwise obtain honestly) and healthcare is not a right. Government has no legal authority to be involved in healthcare, retirement, charity, etc.

I guess to be fair, the governement should tell parents of fetal alcohol syndrom kids that it's their problem and no help will be given, let them handle it themselves.

I agree. They should tell that to anyone who needs medical care and they should stop preventing people who know how to give care but don't hold a license from giving it.

The school system is not going to treat that child any different than a normal one, because it would be unfair to all the other parents to have to pay for the consequences of the free choices taken by the one parent.

I'm against publically funded schools anyway.

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Some people (incorrectly) use the word "ironic" interchangably with "sarcastic." I believe dar512 meant "sarcastic."

Hey look, I'm quoting myself to point out my own error... how ironic. I guess that by it's definition, "irony" can technically be synonymous to "sarcasm:"

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

...though that's not common usage. At least not in well-educated circles. [size=1]*Cough*[/size] :D

*Ducks*

Originally posted by Radar
The only criminal here is the one who charged her with any crime at all. She not only should get away without a single punishment, she should get a lot of money for being wrongly arrested.

Well, just as you don't think she should be punished, neither should whomever arrested her. Doing one's job isn't a crime.

quote:She also must take on the responsibility to put that unborn child's needs FIRST above her OWN, and if that means get the damned C-section if the doctor strongly recommends it!

Says who? You? She alone decides whose needs come first and who has the greatest claim on her body. Not you, not me, the father, or the government. Since it's her body she can decide that her needs come first and are above those of an unborn fetus inside her.

Common sense says so. Guess I don't need to bring up again how fucked up parents send out fucked up children into the world.

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Common sense says so. Guess I don't need to bring up again how fucked up parents send out fucked up children into the world.

I agree, somebody has to protect the gene pool.

Webster's defines sarcasm as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance". I looked everywhere [even under my chair in case it had fallen out], but I didn't see anything in Webster that says whether the utterer would be educated or not.

In this case, I used the word 'ironic' so that I could include the quote from Roxanne - one of my favorite movies.

Originally posted by dar512


Quzah the humanitarian has spoken.

BTW it's "daisies".

Make that compassionate conservative.;)

Wow...I almost missed Radar's libertarian indoctrinations.

Originally posted by quzah


Which again, isn't ironic. It's actually quite fitting to the topic at hand. She knew that a C-section would save the kid, but she opted not to use it.

She couldn't know that. She might have known that surgery comes with it's own set of risks, and didn't guarantee a good outcome though.

Sorry, I only got half way through the thread before my head exploded.

I wonder when exactly we went from, "should we kill it?" to a cutesy politically acceptable thing called "pro choice"?

When some people tried to answer the first question for other people.

Originally posted by blue58
Sorry, I only got half way through the thread before my head exploded.

I wonder when exactly we went from, "should we kill it?" to a cutesy politically acceptable thing called "pro choice"?

Shouldn't woman decide what others are going to do with HER body. Or she should offer her body to anybody who wants to cut her?

Originally posted by u4ever


Shouldn't woman decide what others are going to do with HER body. Or she should offer her body to anybody who wants to cut her?

That's why people come to the cellar.

To find answers to questions like that.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
That's why people come to the cellar.

I'm only here for the free beer that Toad promised.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


That's why people come to the cellar.

To find answers to questions like that.

So? Where is my answer? :-) I'm here, and waiting :-)

(just kidding)

Originally posted by u4ever


So? Where is my answer? :-) I'm here, and waiting :-)

(just kidding)

Patience Grasshopper. As one's post count increases so does one's wisdom.

Eh, I don't think so...just look at Jimbo...or Radar...or me.

Originally posted by sycamore
Eh, I don't think so...just look at Jimbo...or Radar...or me.

I didn't say it was a direct proportion...

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Patience Grasshopper. As one's post count increases so does one's wisdom.

Ok. I see that you are a wisest one here. Can you clear an idea of 'pro life' for me?

1. Fetus is a separate person, so if we kill him/her - it is a murder. Right?

2. State can make a decision to cut someone’s body (woman) for benefit of said separate person (Fetus). Right?

So, basically State can make decision to butcher anybody if that can benefit some person. Am I right? Or I lost a track somewhere?

(there can be a milder versions, like they can take just your blood, so there will be no trace of surgery...)

Originally posted by u4ever




So, basically State can make decision to butcher anybody if that can benefit some person. Am I right? Or I lost a track somewhere?

Sure, if one of Bush's Republican friends needs a kidney, they just go down the list of democrats and pick one.
It's good to be the king. :king:

Actually, I think the last time that happened it was the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wasn't it?

Heart and lungs, if memory serves.

People wait months or years on a transplant list ... Gov. Bob somehow ended up with a perfect match donor within a couple weeks ...

Originally posted by u4ever


Shouldn't woman decide what others are going to do with HER body. Or she should offer her body to anybody who wants to cut her?

Are you saying that an unborn child has no rights? So five minutes before birth a fetus has no rights. Five minutes after, it has all the rights of a US citizen? (Pardon my US centricity to those elsewhere.)

BTW, I think there's a difference between "someone trying to save the life of your unborn child" and "anybody who wants to cut you".

For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

Originally posted by dar512
A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

Chain her to a post and make everybody move 100 yds back ...

Originally posted by dar512
So five minutes before birth a fetus has no rights. Five minutes after, it has all the rights of a US citizen?

No, it only has all the rights of a US citizen at 35 (right to run for presiident).

Originally posted by wolf
Chain her to a post and make everybody move 100 yds back ...

That's pretty much what I was thinking. On an aside, it would have to be one hell of a small bomb. All it could really do is kill them anyway. Small enough to swallow? Maybe some C4 carefully worked into a long strand or something. But still, I don't think you could get enough down (with appropriate detonators) to actually cause anything more than a big mess.

That's one thing that always cracks me up. Suicide bombers who don't take anyone with them. I mean come on people! If you're going to be stupid enough to be a suicide bomber, make sure you take some one else out too! Run up and give some one a hug or something. Shit. At least get one! Otherwise all your other heroic friends in wherever it is suicide bombers go are all going to laugh at you:

SB1: I got forty five! Ten were children! I love busses!
SB2: I got 11, and maimed 15!
YOU: I got shit. I made a hell of a mess though! That blood stain won't be coming out of that carpet any time soon!
SB1: Pathetic!
SB2: HAHAH No one? You are a disgrace!

Quzah.

Originally posted by u4ever


Ok. I see that you are a wisest one here. Can you clear an idea of 'pro life' for me?

I don't know about wisest but I'll do what I can to clarify the argument.

Originally posted by u4ever
1. Fetus is a separate person, so if we kill him/her - it is a murder. Right?

As it stands, the law isn't settled on whether it is a person or not. Conservatives, in general, say that from conception it is a person and should be afforded all consideration that a walking, breathing, voting person should. Liberals, in general, espouse a greater concern for the mother and her personal rights, but havn't been able to get anyone to agree as to when a fetus becomes a person. There are, of course, many shades in that spectrum.

In my opinion, when the fetus goes from being a parasite, in the clinical sense, to being able to survive if it was outside of the womb it should be given the considerations of a person. Before that it should fall under prosecution other than murder. I know that that may seem a bit arbitrary, but until someone actually hands down a solid standard by which to measure and/or prosecute people there are going to be people who escape prosecution who deserve it and people who get the hammer dropped on them when a lesser punishment was deserved.

Originally posted by u4ever
2. State can make a decision to cut someone’s body (woman) for benefit of said separate person (Fetus). Right?

This one is tough, but I say no. The caveat here is that you can respect a person's physical liberty but still prosecute them for the results of their decision. The problem is, in cases similar to this one, where a mother was doing drugs when she knew she was pregnant. If that child comes out damaged she should be prosecuted for endangerment

Originally posted by u4ever
So, basically State can make decision to butcher anybody if that can benefit some person. Am I right? Or I lost a track somewhere?

No, they can't.

Originally posted by u4ever
(there can be a milder versions, like they can take just your blood, so there will be no trace of surgery...)

They can take your blood once it's out, but even in the psychiatric facility where I worked patients could refuse blood for bloodwork.

Originally posted by wolf


Chain her to a post and make everybody move 100 yds back ...

All right. I knew I'd get a bunch of smart ass responses to this. Let me put it in plainer language.

As I see it there are two main questions involved here (along with some ancillary issues) :

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?

2) If you think a fetus has rights, how do you balance that with the rights of the mother? Do the needs of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother because it's life is at stake?

I'd rather hear whether you think this woman was morally correct. The issue of legality I don't find very interesting.

These are difficult moral questions. If you can't answer these, then admit (at least to yourself) that you're just emoting and not thinking.

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?

No, I don't think a fetus should have rights. But, I don't think that's what you're really asking here anyway. It seems to me the real question is; do doctors have the right to determin the best interest of someone's fetus or child, and act on it without regard for the parents rights. Again my answer is no.
The woman did a lot of things, which are you referring to? Was it morally correct to refuse surgery... I'd say yes. Was it morally correct to knowingly use drugs that caused harm the the fetus.... I'd say no.

Originally posted by jinx

It seems to me the real question is; do doctors have the right to determin the best interest of someone's fetus or child, and act on it without regard for the parents rights. Again my answer is no.

Yes. Certainly that is the ultimate question. However, I think the answer to that question is determined by the answers to my questions.

Your answer to your question was 'no'. Why was it no? How did you come to that conclusion? If not by the questions I posed above, what other criteria did you use?

Originally posted by dar512


Your answer to your question was 'no'. Why was it no? How did you come to that conclusion? If not by the questions I posed above, what other criteria did you use?

A fetus is unborn, a "potential" person, not yet an individual.

Originally posted by dar512
2) If you think a fetus has rights, how do you balance that with the rights of the mother? Do the needs of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother because it's life is at stake?

Turn it around. What if the life of the mother was at stake? Should the fetus have more of a right to live than the mother?

Quzah.

Originally posted by dar512
1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?

[size=1]Opening a whole can of worms on my self with this post[/size]

I don't think a fetus should have rights.

Do I think this woman was morally correct in what she did?
Hell no, she made a choice that directly resulted in one of her children being born dead. She could have prevented it but she let vanity get in the way. As a parent we make a silent pledge to protect our children at all costs. If you are not willing to protect your child from danger and yes, even death then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with. I know people will disagree with that statement but its how I feel. We are responsible for the life we bring into this world and knowingly putting that life in danger makes that woman lower then scum in my eyes, but given all the articles I have read about her, it looks like she wasn't all together there to begin with.

Originally posted by jinx


A fetus is unborn, a "potential" person, not yet an individual.

A fetus has a unique set of genes. No other human being (with the exception of maybe a twin) will ever be the same as that unique fetus. That is very individual to me.

When does a human actualize its potential? When it developes a brain? When it is born? When it can speak? When it graduated from high school, or college? What if it is born retarded and will never get above a three year old's capabilities. Will that child ever stop being just a potential human, or is has it achieved humanity yet? Is it less of a human because of the mental abilities it lacks, and will never achieve?

When we start defining a human being as human material that has achieved certain goals or milestones of physical or mental development, I think we are missing something. Humans are humans because of what they are, not because of what they have done or how far along they have developed. A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth. Is one more human than the other? A three day old zygot (or whatever it is called, I can't quite remember) is an individual of unique characteristics, and it is human (not potentially human). We can argue about if is a 'person' whatever that is, but not about if it is human or unique.

The question of abortion is does a mother's choice of what happens to her body have precidence over the right to life of a human being growing inside of her. Take the argument where you will from there.

A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth.

I disagree. One day before birth it is a fetus with an obligatory dependant relationship with it's mother. They day after it is a person, a living individual, a men created equal.

In granting the fetus the right to be born surgically, aren't you assuming that the fetus even wants that? Why wouldn't it be assumed that the desires of the fetus are exactly the same as the desires of the mother?

Originally posted by Brigliadore

[size=1]Opening a whole can of worms on my self with this post[/size]

I don't think a fetus should have rights.

Do I think this woman was morally correct in what she did?
Hell no, she made a choice that directly resulted in one of her children being born dead. She could have prevented it but she let vanity get in the way. As a parent we make a silent pledge to protect our children at all costs. If you are not willing to protect your child from danger and yes, even death then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with. I know people will disagree with that statement but its how I feel. We are responsible for the life we bring into this world and knowingly putting that life in danger makes that woman lower then scum in my eyes, but given all the articles I have read about her, it looks like she wasn't all together there to begin with.

*applauding wildly!!*

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to put them in the line of fire even before they are born??? Hell, I worked with a woman who stayed with her abusive boyfriend, who beat the crap out of her even when she was carrying their child. She told me he threw her down stairs, tossed her against walls, and so forth. But hey...it's HER body and HER decision, right? Such utter and complete bullcrap!

Anyway, this situation in Utah is bringing up some very interesting subject matter, including a woman's decision to not have a C-section:

Charge against W. Jordan mother creates legal challenge

I dont think that the mother should go to prison, let her continence(sp?) be her judge and jury. But I feel that she should not be able to have anymore children though.

...then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with...

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to...


I don't get this point of veiw. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

It sounded like to me that she understood the consiquences of what could happen, and she chose to worry about her appearence (thats what is sounds like) rather than save the children, at least one of them in this case. Before you ask, I am a father of two wonderful children, and I asked my wife her oppinion before I wrote this, and she agreed that if it would save the children, she would do it, regardless of what the appearence would be.

But that is my opinion

Originally posted by jinx

I disagree. One day before birth it is a fetus with an obligatory dependant relationship with it's mother. They day after it is a person, a living individual, a men created equal.

What I mean is that physiologically, the baby is the same, only its location has changed. A nine month old fetus is just as capable of feelings as a one day old baby. It reacts to people's voices, it feels and reacts to pain. I heard of one case (I wish I could confirm but can't) where the womb was not quite full of liquid, and a late term fetus actually was heard crying.

What I am getting at is that legally, you can define anything not yet out of the womb as not possesing rights. But biologically, one is just as fully human as the other.

If you want to argue that the woman's rights over her body superscede those of another human being's rights to live, that is a different argument, and I can see where that is coming from, however what you are saying doesn't connect with me.

Yes, the woman would have had to undergo surgery, but this was a life and death situation for the fully formed human beings inside her. I see this woman as having neglected the responsibilities of a parent to protect her child.


To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

A thought occured to me.

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.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast



What I am getting at is that legally, you can define anything not yet out of the womb as not possesing rights. But biologically, one is just as fully human as the other.

Yes, I agree. One is a human fetus and the other is a human infant.

To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

I guess that depends on how/why he swallowed it in the first place, if it was intentional and if he knew the consequesnces.

until the umbilical cord is cut, or the placenta delivered, the baby is still part of the mother. A parasite.

Survival of the fittest extends to your parents. If they don;t think enough of you to ensure your survival, then the gene should die with them.

A thought occured to me.

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.

so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

or are you just playing devils advocate? just because the government does it, doesn;t make it right. The government also [insert latest government committed atrocity here].

so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

This is called being a "Republican".

It also usually means you have no interest what-so-ever in actually adopting a child that had its life saved by not being aborted.

Originally posted by quzah

Turn it around. What if the life of the mother was at stake? Should the fetus have more of a right to live than the mother?

Quzah.

Or turn it around the other way. The mother follows the doctors advice, say it was just for induction. The baby dies as a direct result of his actions (cytotec or pitocin caused uterine rupture). Rare but it happens. If mom sues she's compared to the hot coffee lady and her lawyer is blamed for the downfall of society.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast



What I am getting at is that legally, you can define anything not yet out of the womb as not possesing rights. But biologically, one is just as fully human as the other.

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.;)

Originally posted by lumberjim
until the umbilical cord is cut, or the placenta delivered, the baby is still part of the mother. A parasite.

Arhhhhhggg, LJ! Can open, worms everywhere. Can the mother who just delivered the baby with still uncut unbilical cord say "I change my mind, abort it now!', or at this point, is it she forced to have the cord cut and let the baby live? Is cutting the cord considered cutting a part of the mother, or is it tissue that is neither baby nor mother? Can she refuse to have the cord cut because it is an invasion of her body's personal space if she is forced to do so?



so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?
or are you just playing devils advocate?


That last post was just me pointing out that the guvment does impose this kind of thing onto its people. I don't consider myself a draft supported, though I think I would back the WWII draft. The Vietnam draft was for really bad reasons, and the elite got to avoid it, which made it even worse.
The draft as a general idea is a bad thing, but I can think of extreme situations where it might be the lesser of evils for a great many people. I'm not very firm on that though.

no, the mother cannot actively decide to kill the baby once it is delivered. nor can she stab it within the womb when it is past the point where it could survive if extracted.

she didnt KILL the baby, she chose not to risk her own life.

If the mother decided not to cut the cord, the placenta comes out, the baby is then autonomous. The mother cannot abandon the baby. if she cannot care for it, she must give it over to the state to care for it. again, this lady did not choose to neglect her fetus, she chose to protect herself.

dont mix up issues. this SOUNDS like pro life/prochoice material, but that's not really what we're discussing. no worms.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
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.;)

So true, so true, and a great parallel to this topic!

Originally posted by lumberjim

dont mix up issues. this SOUNDS like pro life/prochoice material, but that's not really what we're discussing. no worms.

Okay, I can see I am wandering around a lot of marginal topics, sorry, I tend to do that.

Let me try to state the key question...

Can the government punish someone for their refusal to accept harm to their body that would result in a saved fetus?

Where this overlaps with the pro life/pro choice I would say is in the question of the rights of a fetus. Where it differs is that a person choosing abortion is actively trying to eliminate the fetus, whereas this woman passively avoided surgery that would have saved the fetus.

I think I got that right, correct me if I am wrong. And I have to go sleep now before I pass out at my keyboard.

Originally posted by jinx
I don't get this point of view. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

No I don't think there is a way to apply my point of view, nor do I think there should be. The only way it could be applied is if every person who wanted to have a child had to apply for a child permit, go through a complete psych. exam, financial evaluation, a general personality evaluation, etc. Who would do that; the government? I don't want anyone to have that much control over someone else. But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant. In many states birth control is free, and if its not free, its not that expensive. Just because a person can have a child doesn't always mean they should.

[size=1]EDIT: Fixed grammar mistake[/size]

Originally posted by Brigliadore
But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant.

She put thought into it...

"Ah fuck it. I only wanted one anyway..."

Quzah.

Originally posted by lumberjim
no, the mother cannot actively decide to kill the baby once it is delivered. nor can she stab it within the womb when it is past the point where it could survive if extracted.

[COLOR=indigo]It can survive if extracted at about 6 months now. Hence the situation.

It could have been extracted and saved.

If not murder, at least neglect.
[/COLOR]

Originally posted by wolf
Actually, I think the last time that happened it was the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wasn't it?

Heart and lungs, if memory serves.

People wait months or years on a transplant list ... Gov. Bob somehow ended up with a perfect match donor within a couple weeks ...

Heart and liver. Gov. Robert P. Casey.

Originally posted by dar512
For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

The woman has committed a criminal action and is threatening the public with a lethal weapon.

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

If I were the woman's lawyer, I would make the following points.

a) The doctors opinions were just that - opinions. Doctors do not always agree and there is never any way to measure the chances in that situation.

b) Health organizations have released warnings about a rise in uncessary C-sections.

c) Doctors routinely recommend C-sections for women who have had them in the past, irregardless of the individual situation. The woman may have had no idea if there was a true emergency or the doctor was practicing 'defensive medicine'.

d) The cosmetic objection the woman is alleged to have made may have been a misunderstanding due to the woman's not being able to articulate her objection. If she had had more than one C-section before, she might simply have developed a phobia towards them. Doctors or nurses may have interpreted her objection as cosmetic when she could not say why she did not want the procedure. "I don't want you to cut into me again" might be interpreted as a cosmetic objection.

e) The equal protection clause gives the woman as much right to refuse an invasive procedure as anyone else, including those making religious objections. If the doctors felt strongly enough, they could have requested a court order as they would in the case of a parent refusing a life-saving operation for a child. The fact that they did not do so indicates that they were unsure of the risks involved.

Article on C-sections

Originally posted by Fireman
I dont think that the mother should go to prison, let her continence(sp?) be her judge and jury. But I feel that she should not be able to have anymore children though.

I don't think she has a conscience. She sold it for crack cocaine a couple years ago.

I think you are right,wolf.;)

Well, just as you don't think she should be punished, neither should whomever arrested her. Doing one's job isn't a crime.

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.

Common sense says so

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.

BTW, I think there's a difference between "someone trying to save the life of your unborn child" and "anybody who wants to cut you".

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.

For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

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.

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

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

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights?

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

A fetus has a unique set of genes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[COLOR=indigo]I disagree on the "it's not a baby" arguement. It IS a baby. It sucks it's thumb, it kicks, it moves, it responds to noise, it is a growing baby.

Make no mistake. No matter when the pregnancy is terminated, it is killing a child. If you don't terminate the pregnancy, it grows up to be a child. No matter what timeframe you kill it, it is a child. 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 10 months, 10 years. It's just the age of the child. Not fetus. That's just a slippery arguement to try to make people feel better.

If they would have strapped that woman down and cut her open, what would they have taken out? Twin babies. So what was in there? Twin babies. She was CARRYING twin babies. And she refused to be cut open, despite multiple doctors (not just one) telling her that one or both of her children (not fetuses) may die. Know what she said? "Then let them die."

Her refusal consitutes at LEAST neglect and endangerment. She willfully and with all medical knowledge available to her SIGNED A CONSENT FORM saying she knew the risks. She understood that one or both of her children could die.

I agree that government should have no jurisdiction over her body, and cannot force her to have a c-section.

But, as Radar is constantly telling us, in the "responsible world", the consequences of her actions, (the death of one of her children (not fetus)) should be met with the appropriate punishment. She made a choice that resulted in one of her children's death, and she should be punished accordingly. [/COLOR]

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

I know I originally brought up the point of Christian Scientists being a similar scenario, but I've since figured out the legal difference.

Often times guilt has to do with the person's state of mind; whether they knew they were committing a crime or not. In the case of Christian Scientists, they believe that not having the surgery is "saving" the child, whereas having the surgery would condemn the child. It's basically a modified insanity plea, and it's why (to my knowledge--feel free to show otherwise) no Christian Scientists have ever been convicted. On the other hand, this woman understood what she was doing and did it anyway.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo] It's just the age of the child. Not fetus. That's just a slippery arguement to try to make people feel better.

[/COLOR]

Make people feel better about what?



fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Originally posted by jinx
...then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with...

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to...


I don't get this point of veiw. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

Basically, my argument stems from society who tends to heavily question the POV and decisions that the "childfree" make about NOT having kids. I feel that those who desire/want kids should be questioned just as hard. I guess I also don't understand how someone, who has just found out they are pregnant, would not do everything in their power to protect that unborn life, and that would continue to protect it once out of the womb. And yet, "we" (childfree) get called all kinds of child-haters, selfish, uncaring...why is it different for parents? What is mind boggling and head explode-y to me is that parents will say they love their child, yet put their child in harms way!

So, I guess that's whay I'm trying to explain when I said what I said. It didn't have anything to do about abortion (even though I am pro-choic) or any type of forced sterilization.

Originally posted by Brigliadore

No I don't think there is a way to apply my point of view, nor do I think there should be. The only way it could be applied is if every person who wanted to have a child had to apply for a child permit, go through a complete psych. exam, financial evaluation, a general personality evaluation, etc. Who would do that; the government? I don't want anyone to have that much control over someone else. But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant. In many states birth control is free, and if its not free, its not that expensive. Just because a person can have a child doesn't always mean they should.

[size=1]EDIT: Fixed grammar mistake[/size]

You are my new hero *Grins* That was what I was saying in my response to jinx. I find it funny that if someone says they don't want kids, then all of a sudden it's third degree time with family/friends, etc. But, not one question when someone says that they want kids, even if it's blatently obvious that they shouldn't.

As far as birth control, anyone can go to their local Planned Parenthood. They will work with the person, if what they need requires any payment. IIRC, they allowed me to pay a reduced rate for the Depo that I was on a couple of years ago. I heart them very much. :D

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Basically, my argument stems from society who tends to heavily question the POV and decisions that the "childfree" make about NOT having kids. I feel that those who desire/want kids should be questioned just as hard. I guess I also don't understand how someone, who has just found out they are pregnant, would not do everything in their power to protect that unborn life, and that would continue to protect it once out of the womb. And yet, "we" (childfree) get called all kinds of child-haters, selfish, uncaring...why is it different for parents? What is mind boggling and head explode-y to me is that parents will say they love their child, yet put their child in harms way!

So, I guess that's whay I'm trying to explain when I said what I said. It didn't have anything to do about abortion (even though I am pro-choic) or any type of forced sterilization.

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

Putting your child in harms way is incredibly subjective. What you may see as harm (not vaccinating your kids) others see as protection. What you may not see as harm (giving kids soda and McGarbage) other would. Because one doesn't have as much faith in obstetrics as others, they are questioned. But they shouldn't be prosecuted.

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. :)

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?

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.

Originally posted by jinx


Make people feel better about what?

[COLOR=indigo]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.
[/COLOR]

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

Yeah, I get that a lot myself.

[size=1]*cough*[/size]

But seriously, you've made a lot of excellent points... Your views on this matter are alarmingly similar to my own :D. 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.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]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".[/COLOR]

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

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.

[COLOR=indigo]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.
[/COLOR]

Originally posted by jinx


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

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!
:mad:

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.

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!
:mad:

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. [size=1]*cough*[/size]

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.

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.

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)??? :confused:

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.

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!

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!
:mad:

The scar thing is ridiculous and the woman has denied that it was factor in her decision. She already has c/s scars.

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.

"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.

Originally posted by Kitsune
What if the child is born really early, but is still dependant on machines for life, much as a fetus/parasite?

The machine hosts for the parasite are free to object at any time.

Originally posted by jinx

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

[COLOR=indigo]I agree. She didn't murder the baby, she purposfully and willfully let it die.[/COLOR]

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)???

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!

Originally posted by lumberjim
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.

Originally posted by jinx


The scar thing is ridiculous and the woman has denied that it was factor in her decision. She already has c/s scars.

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)???

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...

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?

Originally posted by lumberjim
semantics

[COLOR=indigo]So the difference in "murder" and "homicide" is semantics but "fetus" and "baby" isn't???

[/COLOR]

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!

[COLOR=indigo]oh. silly me.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Kitsune
[I]

"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!

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.

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

Endangering a Fetus is not a crime. A crime has only been committed when the rights of a non-consenting other have been violated. It may be against the law, but that law would then be the crime because it violates the highest law of all; Natural Law.

Natural law actually dicates nothing about rights per se.

Please take a moment to read the following two essays and get back to me. You will find they give a far more complete understanding of the concept than that somewhat inaccurate and short definition.

Both essays are more than 100 years old and like the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused in them are as fresh today as the day they were written.

The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

and

Natural Law - By Lysander Spooner


[quote]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.

Again, natural law is the easiest thing in the world to understand once you try to think about every problem from the angle of which solution would provide the most freedom and least intrusion by government on our lives; which solution would provide the most freedom at the least cost to the most people without violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, etc.. Natural law self-evident, but reading those links I provided will help you approach it from the right angle to make it clear and unambiguous.

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.

I don't find this area gray in the slightest. A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host. But even using your example of someone who isn't capable of offering consent, someone else usually makes decisions for them including pulling the plug from life support. Do you think a woman who pulls the plug on her husband when he's a vegetable is guilty of a crime? Let's say he never indicated anything to her one way or the other on the subject but she herself would never want to endure being a vegetable and wouldn't want to burden others in such away. And let's say she assumed her husband shared this opinion so she pulled the plug. Is she a criminal?

This isn't really an accurate comparison since the husband isn't a parasite inside of her body. If he were and she chose to remove him and end his life, it would no more be a crime than removing a tumor.

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

Rights are absolute as long as you're not violating the rights of others. You are born with them. You can't vote on them, have them taken away from you, sell them, or even give them away. You can choose not to exercise them; someone might violate them, but they are always there FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARE BORN (not before).

Many people have a hard time distinguishing the difference between rights and privileges even though they are the opposite of each other. A right is something we don't need ask permission to do. We are born with them. This includes sole ownership of our lives, minds, and bodies and the sole discretion of what to do with them.

Let's say you and I live next door to each other. I go outside and start walking back and forth across my back yard. I can do it all day and don't have to ask anyone. I can do this because I own my property. Neither you, nor the government can tell me not to walk back and forth in my own yard because it is my RIGHT to do so.

Now let's say I want to go to the store and cut through your backyard. You happen to think I'm an ok guy because I am a defender of your freedom and mine so you agree to let me do it.

This is a privilege. I am crossing your yard at your discretion and with your permission which you may revoke at any time. You could let me cross Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but suddenly decide you don't like me anymore because you lost a debate to me on Friday and suddenly revoke permission. This would not violate my rights. But it would violate your rights if I continued to walk across your property even when you've revoked permission. You own your property and everything within your property that has been obtained honestly and without force or coercion.

Always remember, government has no rights; society has no rights; all rights are individual rights and you must be an individual to have individual rights.

Back to the fetus situation...

You own your body and everything within it. If you have a tapeworm, it's YOUR tapeworm. If you have another parasite such as a fetus inside of you, you own that too until the moment it is born. Up until that very second, it is property. And the moment it is no longer inside of your body, assuming it is alive, it ceased to be property and then is an individual person and is entitled to natural rights.

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

All of those things are alive, but they do not possess human life and are not sentient beings. We were discussing human life. Perhaps I should have used the term "human" before life to help you avoid confusion.

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

The gestation period is all that matters, because it is only during this time that the progeny are considered parasites biologically speaking. When the kids grow up and pay for Mom and Dad's prescription pills, that doesn't negate the fact that they were a parasite while in the womb.

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.

We're each entitled to our own opinions, but it is only the opinion of the mother that matters in this regard. While I'd agree the chances of a baby surviving without assistance from the mother are slim to none, this isn't the issue at hand.

While conscription has been shown to be of questionable success it is still a common, and apparently acceptable situation.

Acceptable to whom? Successful to whom?

The people of America (and I'd hazard to guess virtually everywhere else) have never failed to voluntarily commit to defending this country by enlisting in the military during any war including unjust and unprovoked wars like Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Only a completely voluntary military ensures the government won't rush into wars we don't belong in. It means the people (individuals) must support the government's reasons for war and keeps everyone honest. It is only the acceptance of the person whom the government is attempting to draft that matters. If this person doesn't support the reasons for the war (perhaps he's Irish and America is attacking Ireland without provocation), it would be a gross violation of his most basic human rights to use force to send him into danger or death despite his wishes. The government holds no claim over his life and can not make this decision for him.

The only people for whom conscription has been successful are government bureaucrats and politicians who might start a war to appease politically influencial companies, or to secure trade with another country, or for any number of reasons that defy the only reason for having a military which is DEFENSE.

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.

I don't think the question was directed at me, but sure I'll answer it.

I'm against conscription because it defies natural law, common sense, and freedom and amounts to nothing less than slavery and murder. I am against the death penalty, but only because of the ineptitude of government. Many people who have gotten the death penalty have been later found innocent of the crime. Many others have been found not guilty of the crime before the death penalty but prevented from giving new evidence (DNA) etc. If there were a mountain of indisputable evidence including DNA, video tape of the crime, finger prints, and dozens of very credible witnesses, to a very heinous and nasty murder for instance, and I were on the jury I'd do what I thought best. If I had absolutely no doubt I could send them to die, but I'd try to find every doubt I could.

I also didn't discount the sacrifices of those who have died defending America. This has nothing to do with the argument against conscription. I respect and honor those who have voluntarily joined the military and defended America and even those who were forced to join and were basically murdered by our own government. I'm saddened by the fact that most of these great people died while being used as pawns in unconstitutional wars when the U.S. military wasn't defending America, but rather, defending another country, attacking another country, or otherwise being misused.

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

What makes you think foreign people who live in the United States don't pay tax? Most green card holders and even illegals pay tons of taxes. In addition to the regular sales taxes, tariffs, excise taxes, etc. they pay social security and income taxes. Yet they are prevented from collecting social security and in many cases from collecting welfare even when they paid into the system.

Rights are not given out by government. They are something you're born with. Remember rights are the opposite of priviledges.

What books do you read?

Too many to list....but mainly non-fiction.

For work, I read a lot of computer networking manuals and boring white papers, etc.

For years at home I read classic books, but recently I'm reading more contemporary and socially relevant books like Restoring the American Dream by Robert Ringer, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do by Peter McWilliams, Libertarianism in one lesson by David Bergland, The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It by Judge Jim Gray, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer, How to Win Local Elections by Judge Lawrence Grey, Drug War Addiction by Sheriff Bill Masters, The Libertarian Reader by David Boaz, etc.

I also like all the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicle books, Sci Fi books like Neuromancer by William Gibson and Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, etc.

As I said, really too many to list

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]So the difference in "murder" and "homicide" is semantics but "fetus" and "baby" isn't???

[/COLOR]

right argument, wrong customer.

i think you knew what i meant, and are now just nitpicking.

i'm surprised at you. i see that you have strong feelings about this, and i respect your opinion. let's dont throw stones at each other.....it's not that important.

peace, mama, peace.

Originally posted by ladysycamore
[i]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."[i]

If there are credible witnesses that can say for sure that she said that, that *could* be her ass.

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.

I do suspect some mental illness, though, based on the level of fear and the fact that she had already undergone the procedure.

A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host.

Your explanation regarding the definition of a "person" versus a "fetus" is probably the best I've seen in the discussion so far, but I find it surprising that a mere umbilical cord makes so much of a difference. A fetus has has no consent to offer, but neither does a one year old. A fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother, but a one year old cannot survive without the care of its mother -- it is just as much a parasite at that age. Location of the, uh, lifeform doesn't change that.

I have no real opinion on the matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but I find the argument interesting because of the definitions drawn and how they are defined.

One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.

Originally posted by jinx
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. [b]Every decision a parent makes will be scrutinized and criticized by anyone who hears of it.... and doctors and family are the worst offenders. [/B]

Sure, but where was the, "but why would you even WANT to be pregnant" question? I'll tell you where...nowhere to be found, because that's not something that many people would even DARE to ask, but yet, as I stated, I know of more people who get 20 questions about how/why they don't want kids. 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!" and one of my aunts said wistfully, "A child is always a miracle" (which made me cringe, but that's for another topic). At any rate, I sat there, stunned, and was like, "Oh shit..." because I knew that she was in no way financially or mentally ready to be a mother, and that this pregnancy was not planned at all. Yeah, she's 21, but she's not mentally an adult. She's not childish or anything, but just...not mother material...not yet. She hadn't "lived" life...hadn't gotten out there to experience what a 21 year old likes to do. I know when *I* was 21, the last thing I wanted to do is have a baby (and this was before I knew the word "childfree" even existed).

I can only go by personal experiences jinx. I understand what you are saying about being scrutinized, but it's about how to parent, and not why become a parent.

One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.

Hmm, yes, but some children that are not yet born that have been removed from the womb far before they are ready to be born often thrive without the need for a host body. Does the ability to survive outside of the host body define it, or does the technical aspect of passing naturally from the body graduate the being?

Ah, ok yes, I can see that difference. It would be considered rude to suggest that someone shouldn't have children, but not rude in the least to suggest that someone should (or are making a mistake if they are not). Crappy double standard. Not unlike the people who think it's ok to make negative comments about how skinny someone is. Some people just don't think.

Originally posted by ladysycamore
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)???

You have the right to choose to put the child's welfare above your own. But you are not required to do so. It is like the CPR reference I made. I can choose to save your life, but I don't have to. It's also not a crime if I decide not to do so.

Quzah.

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.

For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another. While a child (not a fetus) is dependent as an infant, it isn't necessarily dependent on the mother. It could be dependent on adopted parents, on the father, on a pack of wolves, etc. Let's keep it to the biological definition please.

From what most everyone else is telling me, our laws in this country are Christian-based.

Everyone else is giving you false information then. The government and laws of United States of America have NEVER been based on Christianity or the bible. America is not a Christian nation and it never will be.

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.

A fetus is not a person. At best they are a "potential" person. Not fulfilling that potential is hardly "murder" and it's not even the loss of a human life. A fetus does not possess human life which is defined by sentience. An abortion is the loss of potential, not the loss of a life.

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

I agree. So stop trying to make it sound as though it were a crime, or that it violated the rights of another person. No matter how hard you try to word it, a fetus is not a person and an abortion is not a murder. It is a medical procedure. But this wasn't even an abortion. It was simply someone making a choice to refuse to have surgery. Charging someone with a crime for this is no different at all from charging them with a crime for choosing not to take their tonsils out.

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)???

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. In my personal opinion if I were told that while my wife was in labor that only she or the child would live, I'd hope my wife lived.

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.

Why would we call a fetus a human being when a fetus doesn't possess human life? A fetus is not a human being. Human life is defined by sentience which a fetus doesn't have.

I agree. She didn't murder the baby, she purposfully and willfully let it die.

No, she didn't even do that. She chose to accept the risks of having the child without a C-Section and it didn't work out. But as someone mentioned, if a person is drowning in front of you, and you don't save them, you are not guilty of a crime. Nor is this woman.

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.

You have the right to choose to put the child's welfare above your own. But you are not required to do so. It is like the CPR reference I made. I can choose to save your life, but I don't have to. It's also not a crime if I decide not to do so.

Very well said.

For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another.

But this is where it is confusing. The biological definition of a parasite states that it does not matter if the life form is in, on, or living with another, just as long as it is dependant on the host life form and gives nothing in return that contributes to the well being of that host.

The biological term of parasite refers to a host and a parasite. The parasite in this case is physically attached to...or within the host.

The social meaning of the word parasite would describe a baby, a mooching brother-in-law, etc. but is entirely different. Therefore the accurate meaning of the word "parasite" in our discussion is the biological term, not the social one.

Originally posted by Radar
Everyone else is giving you false information then. The government and laws of United States of America have NEVER been based on Christianity or the bible.

Except for vice laws. And most of those are more based on centuries of interpretation than on anything in the Bible.

In understanding the idea behind a parasite, perhaps we were given a definition that had a bit of the social one mixed in with it during biology. I do remember them telling us that parasites were usually harmful to the host in some way.

An Interesting Argument - I was surprised to see this debate exists elsewhere.

Of course, who says fetuses aren't harmful to your health? :eek:

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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_new_york/?ArID=13167&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.

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.

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! :mad:

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.

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!:mad:

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.

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.

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" :worried:

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.

*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.

Originally posted by Radar
I can appreciate your anger as a mother.

Eh, she's not a mother. We're childfree.

Radar, Quick question because I don't know the answer and you probably will. Where does the money for welfare come from? Does it come from the taxpayers or ?

Radar,

Was your mother bitten by a philosopher or something while she was carrying you?

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?

Because they choose to and because they want thier fetus to develop normally.

That parent/offspring relationship begins during pregnancy, it does not begin at birth.

It most certainly does. Just as you can not have a relationship with a person locked behind a wall, you can't have a relationship with a fetus. You may stimulate the fetus with things like music or indirect touch through the skin, but only a fool would be so bold as to call something that minor a relationship.

A late term fetus is not a lump that just sits there and leeches

No, it's not a lump. It is shaped more like a big headed baby than a lump. And it doesn't just sit there. It moves around which is not sentience (consciousness), and it's not sitting on anything. It is leeching however.

Radar, Quick question because I don't know the answer and you probably will. Where does the money for welfare come from? Does it come from the taxpayers or ?

The quick answer is it comes from taxpayers. But the truth is it really doesn't come from income tax payers. It comes from those who pay tariffs & import fees (in the form of higher prices), excise taxes, inflation (government theft by reducing the value of our money by printing more than we have to back it up), etc.

Most of the money used to pay for social welfare plans (other than social security) doesn't come from income taxes. Income taxes are mainly used to pay for other unconstitutional programs like foreign aid, and to pay the interest on the 60+ Trillion Dollars of debt the U.S. government has racked up thank to the Republicans and Democrats.

Was your mother bitten by a philosopher or something while she was carrying you?

I'll take that as a compliment. :)

I just got the political/philosophical bug years ago. I didn't get super active until Peter McWilliams was murdered by the U.S. Government for trying to save his own life. After that I got a fire in my belly that just won't die until I do.

Originally posted by Radar


I'll take that as a compliment. :)

I just got the political/philosophical bug years ago. I didn't get super active until Peter McWilliams was murdered by the U.S. Government for trying to save his own life. After that I got a fire in my belly that just won't die until I do.

Take it as you will, but that ain't it. I'm just reminded of all of the people who say they have a scar or a phobia because their mother was bitten by something while they were being carried.

I was going to say that I've never met someone who so doggedly defended their unprovable dogma, but then I remembered all of the theists out there in their various guises. They at least have the fallback of faith. What's your excuse?

TS, are you familiar with the McWilliams situation?

Originally posted by sycamore
TS, are you familiar with the McWilliams situation?

Nope, and I wasn't referring to it in any way.

We live in a wash of inequity, venality, banality, and vice. Conspiracies abound, collusion runs rampant, and coercion is the order of the day.

I am aware of that. I expect it. I'm not referring to any conspiracy or cabal trying to take our lives and freedoms away, I take that for granted.

As a sonar technician on a fast attack submarine, I've dealt with spooks, DIA, killers, Navy SEALS. I've met people that the only thing stopping them from looking right through me was the fact that I carry Top Secret information in my head. I've met the people who do the real dirty work. I know people who SCARE me.

Part of the reason they scare me is their unshakable beliefs. An unwillingness to accept the possibility of being incorrect.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Nope, and I wasn't referring to it in any way.

I was just asking out of curiosity...we've discussed him here before.

Originally posted by sycamore


I was just asking out of curiosity...we've discussed him here before.

Ah.

I looked it up after my outburst, just to see.

And it's kind of funny that the quote that would pop up when I got back was:

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
-- Nietzsche

Originally posted by Radar

A fetus is not a person and is not entitled to rights.

If you are speaking legally, I believe that only applies in some states and during some period of the pregnancy. Morally, I believe that is a simplistic approach and a pretty crumby attitude.

Originally posted by dar512

crumby attitude.

now, I would have spelled that: crummy......but your way ads a whole different visualization to the word.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter




As a sonar technician on a fast attack submarine, I've dealt with spooks, DIA, killers, Navy SEALS. I've met people that the only thing stopping them from looking right through me was the fact that I carry Top Secret information in my head. I've met the people who do the real dirty work. I know people who [B]SCARE me.

[/B]

man, you're cool.

Originally posted by lumberjim


man, you're cool.

*checking for sarcasm*

Ping!
sarcasm confirmed. I repeat....sarcasm confirmed. Collision imminent! Collision Imminent! Dive! Dive!

They at least have the fallback of faith. What's your excuse?

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.

If you are speaking legally, I believe that only applies in some states and during some period of the pregnancy. Morally, I believe that is a simplistic approach and a pretty crumby attitude.

I was speaking biologically and in the sense of natural law not governmental law which is much lower than natural law. A fetus is not a person biologically and therefore is not yet entitled to the natural rights of a person. And personally I find it to be a great attitude and I wish everyone had it. The attitude of allowing others to decide for themselves what they will or won't do with thier bodies, lives, minds, etc. without government interference is wonderful indeed.

Ping!
sarcasm confirmed. I repeat....sarcasm confirmed. Collision imminent! Collision Imminent! Dive! Dive!

Man the Torpedos!

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


*checking for sarcasm*

i mean, really......Doesn't the fact that you have to ask say something? How often do people come up to you and say "man, you're cool." and mean it? Do you think that you're so cool that this might actually occur? In public? .........snicker.





PS. My mom thinks I'm cool.

Originally posted by Radar

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.

I feel bad for Andrea Yates and her entire family. Tragic. I think I could off Susan Smith myself though... with something dull.

Originally posted by lumberjim

PS. My mom thinks [b]I'm cool. [/B]

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

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.

I think you'll find that any ideology that is so profoundly self-evident generally isn't to anyone else.

The analogies I like to use in situations like this are microsoft and pop music. Just because they are popular doesn't mean that they are good.

Originally posted by Brigliadore
Another artical:
http://news10now.com/content/beyond_new_york/?ArID=13167&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.

[color=indigo] huh?
[/color]

The ideas of natural law and natural rights are so self-evident, the US Government and its laws are based on it, and it's been written about for the last 300+ years.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Then certainly you'd have no quibble with the decisions of voters for whom these rights are self-evident.

Originally posted by Clodfobble

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.

[COLOR=indigo]I resemble that. From the time I gave him up to the time I got him back, any time I told the story, that question would be asked. Never mind that I was homeless and living on coconuts and ramen. Nevermind I never saw a doctor because California wouldn't let me go on welfare. Nevermind that I gave birth on the couch. Nevermind I was just turned 17 and hadn't finished school. "How could you give up your baby?" I always felt that was a no win question. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=indigo]Radar, I simply don't understand how you can logically think that when a baby is born, it comes out concious, crying, SENTIENT, but minutes before that event it wasn't.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

That makes no sense to me.
[/COLOR]

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

Then certainly you'd have no quibble with the decisions of voters for whom these rights are self-evident.

Many recognize that rights are self-evident, but are stupid enough to be misled into thinking they can vote on anything or that a group of people have more rights than a single individual even over their own body which is obviously false. Some are under the impression that rights are granted to us by government; probably because they were educated by the government. Many don't realize that their rights don't include telling other people how to live their lives, what they may or may not consume, etc. These tend to be the same people who want to shove their religion down your throat through legislation and violate the important principle of separation of church and state our nation was built upon. These people chip away at the foundation of freedom and individual rights this nation was built on.

So, I would have no quibble over the decisions of voters, as long as they are only voting on issues they have a legitimate authority to vote on. Issues like gay marriage and abortion don't qualify. Those aren't up to anyone but those taking part and can never be legitimately voted on.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. And a newborn baby really doesn't have sentience either (self-awareness). They don't know they have hands or the ability to remember things 5 minutes ago, let alone have the ability to grasp concepts pertaining to ones self.

What I was saying though is that whether or not the baby (babies are post birth, a fetus is inside of the womb) is fully sentient it has been removed from its host and is now a separate person. While a fetus is within the woman up until the moment of actual birth it is a parasite and has no claim on the life of its host. Nobody may tell another what they may or may not do with thier own body, even if they happen to live inside of it.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

This is what I find most interesting about the entire argument and is probably something that will never be fully agreed upon. George Carlin, I think, once said during one of his rants that life never really stops and just keeps going on and on. There really isn't a division line between a fetus and a baby no more than there is a defining moment when a clump of cells becomes something more than a clump of cells. It is a smooth transition from the very first division of cells all the way to turning 18, packing up, and leaving home.

I'm not fully convinced that you can call a fetus a parasite, either, as it has never been recorded in any text I can find that a parasite can be of the same species. I also cannot find any text in which a parasite is not an invader of external origin.

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

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

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


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

How so?

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.

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? :confused: 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. :mad:

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.

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! :D

*doesn't play around with compliments*

Originally posted by ladysycamore


You know what? You [b]ARE cool..for real! :D

*doesn't play around with compliments* [/B]

Thank you.

Hey, Lumberjim.

:flipbird:

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...

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.

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.

[SIZE=1]edited to attribute the quote - no other changes[/SIZE]

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. :mad:

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.

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.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Hey, Lumberjim.

:flipbird:

;)....just fucking around, popeye.

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?

:)

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.

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!



[size=1]---thanks, i'm here all week.[/size]

Originally posted by lumberjim


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

And that's no shit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo] huh?
[/color]

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).

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

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Amen!

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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')

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.

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. :cool:

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

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)

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".:thumb:

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 ...

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.

What I meant was ...

If you "do" use any form of artificial insemination, you're damned.

If you "don't" let all of the embryos resulting come to term, your damned.

But hey, if your Catholic, you just do it anyway, go to confession, coupla Hail Marys, an our Father or two, a good act of contrition, and you got your get outta purgatory free card anyway ...

(Recovering Cathaholic here ... they called it confession when I was still doin' it, so that's what I call it now. I forget the fancy new term, Sacrament of Repentence or Reconciliation or something more PC?)