posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:26 PM
Skipshipman, if you read the article, you would know that the baby was alive when they recommended to the lady they should do an immediate c-section.
Because of that foreknowledge, and the lady wouldn't do it because she didn't want the "scars" that accompany the surgery, thats pure murder.
Also, because the baby was on the verge of being born. I think women should be able to choose if they want an abortion, but this baby was already
passed the date she could have had an abortion. I think with foreknowledge of what is to happen gives you the ability to act, unless you don't care
about the consequences - such as this women did.
An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her
doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.
The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would
"ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A
nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather
have both babies die before going to either place.
This women didn't care for the children she was carrying. She's not fit to be a mother and the child that did survive is better off with a family
member, friend, or the father (if he's around - the article makes no mention of him), that actually cares.