Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woman Charged With Murder for not having C-Section

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The more knowledge we gain, the more libel we become. Think about it, back in the days, when we were not all so connected and the world wasn't so small, and caeserean sections were not a common thing, didn't all women have to go thru natural childbirth? and didn't babies die? Weren't multiple births always a higher risk? Why is it that just because we have the ability to perform a c-section, it suddenly becomes murder if a child dies in the womb? Was it murder back then? Why weren't women tried for murder back then? What if c-sections were against her religion and her god? What if she is just too scared to have herself cut open? I don't know what this lady's reasons were or could ever understand unless I was in her shoes, but I don't think this is way to handle situations like this. Once again knowledge make us libel. Remember this woman has a child to raise still, and she lost one in natural childbirth process, is this the right thing to do for her and her surviving child?

Woman Charged With Murder After Allegedly Ignoring Warnings to Have Caesarean




posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
omg what is the world coming too?

thats sad just sad, the mother lost the child and they want to sue her over that



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
geez...I'm sure the mother is much more upset than anyone else...and she probably should have just gotten the C-section. But it is still her decision to get cut open, and I don't know how this is going to hold up in court.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Wow, that's messed up. I hate it when we men think we're the authority on childbearing, and it really pisses me off when christian fundamentalists try to shove their beliefs down peoples throats.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Holy crap! This is the most sickening thing I've ever heard, that poor woman.
Did it ever occur to them that she was to scared to have knife slicing her open? Bastards!
What ever happened to wanting a natural birth anyway?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Well, at least in a murder case, it's a jury, and I can't see any jury in the world convicting her... The prosecutor who brings this to trial should be disbarred....



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Well, at least in a murder case, it's a jury, and I can't see any jury in the world convicting her... The prosecutor who brings this to trial should be disbarred....


Unless the doctor testifies that she wailed

"You're not gonna carve me up! I'm not gonna live the rest of my life with a scar!"

...then, a jury MIGHT convict her.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Im torn because, if my mom hadnt had a c-section, I wouldnt have been born.

I think the woman should have had the c-section, but I dont think the fact that she didnt should be taken to court.

Why would she be afraid of being cut open? Arent you gassed when they perform this procedure?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Screw that! Emotion: Pissed off beyond all recognition.

wait... not quite enough...

Emotion: PISSED OFF BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION!!!!

The prosecutor who brings this to trial should be subject to an old-fashioned witch-burning!!!! If I ever saw the prosecutor in public, I would swiftly and accuratly kick him in each one of his testicles... and if it's a female, I'll just shove my foot down her throat and watch her choke to death while explaining to her human rights and free will.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Did any of you actually read the article? The lady is obviously nuts - she wouldn't have a c-section purely for cosmetic reasons. She even said that she would rather have one of the babies die than have a c-section. She also said that she would rather have both babies die than to have gone to one of two other hospitals. This lady obviously didn't care about her children and shouldn't of even gotten pregnant in the first place - she's not fit to be a mother, period. C-section scars, if done properly, are barely noticeable.

Anyways, if this person cared that much about what she looked like, she could have had plastic surgery a few months after having the c-section to fix whatever problems "might" have occured to her physically. Also, with c-section, there is much less to worry about physically then when you perform natural childbirth - no pubic area stretching occurs.

If a person really cares for their unborn children, they will do anything to save them. And it should be considered murder because we have the technology now to save an unborn child - she willingly let that child die against the advice of others. I feel no shame for her, I feel only shame for the child that has to know her as "mother." And the child she let die.

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
This goes to show that the legions of laws ruin a culture just as much as the "evil one," is known as "legion."

Since anything and everything is covered, then everyone is liable by the vast net of cumulative statutes. In the end you are at the mercy of men, where there are so many laws, that it becomes a government of men who do with you as they please. That of course sounds like the dark ages, and that is the destination for our civilization at the current rate of illegalization of everything. Beholdent to attorneys, a society ruins itself by casting sands into its own eyes for things once innocent. What is the advice for a woman who miscarries under these legal conditions? Have an abortion or if your baby is stillborn you go to jail. This sounds like the United States of Red China, or Stalin, not the country we know. If it goes too far we will be living in the country we once loved, and ready at any opportunity to pick up stakes and flee.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Ahem...what did I say?




posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Bottom line, for me anyhow, is that it may have been a wrong decision, but it should be obvious that her INTENTION was not to murder her child....and this is why it wouldn't stick...

Besides the morality question raised, on a strictly legal level, seems an impossible conviction...though I'm no lawyer...and the law can often be a funny creature....

The woman lost a child...I don't think that any court can dish out a punishment worse than that.... The purpose of prison is to reform and punish... I think that losing a child accomplishes both...instantly....



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
regardless of what she said, it goes back to knowledge makes us libel. There was a time, when this issue would have only been a concern to that woman and her family.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would convict this lady, why take the mother away from a child who needs her now? Like I said, I can't imagine what I would do in that situation, but I am sure I would say some dumb things especially if the issue is fear.

why not give her counseling, parental classes, help her become a good mother to her surviving child. What good is going to come out of her having to be in jail and going thru trial for murder?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   


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."
"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.



How horrible! Some people dont deserve kids. I would sacrifice my life for my (future) kids. Scars are nothing compared to a human life.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

from the above posted article

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.


So they are saying it's OK to purposfully kill your unborn because you don't want to go through a pregnancy for various reasons (including cosmetic) BUT it's murder if you decide to go through a natural childbirth for cosmetic reasons? MmmHmm... next they will be trying men for murder when they get a vesectomy!



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The bottom line is she chose not to have a doctor slice her open and it's here choice to do so.
For Christ's sake it's not law to have this done if the baby's in trouble, it's entirely up to the mother. Yes, it was more than likely that she's a bad person but if she doesn't want to be cut up then that's her decision. Thankfully that's one of the few freedoms that haven't been taken away by far right pro-lifers just yet.

What case does this raise about people who believe in natural births? Say they strongly disagree with being delt with by a doctor to give birth to the baby, will they now be forced to have this procedure if there are complications?

They didn't have caeserean's at the beginning days of humans you know? It's rediculous to think that one would be forced to have one now, regardless of their reasons for not wanting it.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Member, I'm talking of foreknowledge of events. She had the foreknowledge to save both babies - the babies were already showing signs of trouble before the time she entered the hospital because she hadn't felt her babies move in a while, which is why she went to the hospital to begin with.

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

These were fully formed babies ready to pop out, they weren't some under-developed fetus, and they needed to be taken out at the time or one or both could die. And, in the end, one did die.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
Did any of you actually read the article? The lady is obviously nuts - she wouldn't have a c-section purely for cosmetic reasons. She even said that she would rather have one of the babies die than have a c-section. She also said that she would rather have both babies die than to have gone to one of two other hospitals. This lady obviously didn't care about her children and shouldn't of even gotten pregnant in the first place - she's not fit to be a mother, period. C-section scars, if done properly, are barely noticeable. Anyways, if this person cared that much about what she looked like, she could have had plastic surgery a few months after having the c-section to fix whatever problems "might" have occured to her physically. Also, with c-section, there is much less to worry about physically then when you perform natural childbirth - no pubic area stretching occurs. If a person really cares for their unborn children, they will do anything to save them. And it should be considered murder because we have the technology now to save an unborn child - she willingly let that child die against the advice of others. I feel no shame for her, I feel only shame for the child that has to know her as "mother." And the child she let die.


Maybe the woman was scared of getting cut open. Maybe the woman was too afraid to admit to the doctors that she was scared of getting cut. Maybe the reporter was a pro-life nut who carefully made sure that we knew half the story, and made the woman look like an inhumane b*tch. The bottom line is that it was the woman's choice, and no one elses.






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution