Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woman Charged With Murder for not having C-Section

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer

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.


Even if she was scared of getting cut, Im pretty sure they gas you to perform this procedure. You think she would do anything to save her childs life.




posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
It amazing how we can cast judgement on a woman who havent' even heard from. So far the article is quoting a spokesman for the attorney and nurse. How do we know if it is all heresay or not.

if the babies wanted to pop out, they would have popped out naturally. She wouldn't have to have had a c-section.

I am surprised that not many of you are considering the surviving child. Just another child without a mother.

do keep in mind, I brought this story up, basically to make the point that too much knowledge makes us libel for more things. no one wants to address my other questions as to if this would have been considered murder or not in previous times?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Yeah worldwatcher, and no one wants to respond to my question about people who believe in natural births either.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Whether this is morally wrong or not doesn't matter...I think what she did was wrong, but it is still completely her decision if she wants to get the operation or not. And no one can accurately assess how she really felt about it just by hearing some of those statements she made.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I'm pro-life only when the damn thing is fully developed. Other than that, I could care less. "Oh my god, I'm going to have a scar, I may as well not take and use the advice of others and let one or both of my children die!" Jesus Christ, what do I choose? I could have both my babies, alive and well, by c-section, have a scar, but I'll have the love (hopefully) of both my children for the rest of my life. And hey, maybe I could have some plastic surgery down the road to remove this "unsightly" scar from my abdomen.

Nope, I won't do that, I'd rather go natural and be a hypocrite (because natural is much more taxing on a body - physically) and not listen to the advice of others, maybe lose one or both my children, but hey, my stomach won't have an "unsightly" scar on it! Makes a lot of sense John Nada.

If she didn't want the children, she should have never gotten pregnant in the first place. Women should know the consequences of getting pregnant and letting the babies come to full-term - the risks are ever abundant in this day and age. The c-section is there to prevent things like this.

Anyways, sure, it's her descision, but, if she didn't want the children she could have put them up for adoption - there are lots of caring people who can't make children of their own. And she could have gotten money for it to - to pay for the plastic surgery required to remove her "scar." That is, if she had gone through with the c-section. But, that's just an IF. Who am I to judge though? This topic was just put up to breed discussion.

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   


if the babies wanted to pop out, they would have popped out naturally. She wouldn't have to have had a c-section.


I dont think infants can control how they are born.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Even if she was scared of getting cut, Im pretty sure they gas you to perform this procedure. You think she would do anything to save her childs life.


You'd think that, but you weren't in her position so how do you know the circumstances? There could be thousand different reasons for this such as her being afraid of being gassed as well, believing in natural birth e.t.c. Yet before we've heard from the woman herself, from the tone of your post, you've already judged her.

You preach once you've been in the same position yourself.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Wheee, I can just smell the scent of an abortion debate.

Think of it in these terms. Your father, who is very elderly, is dieing, but he can be saved using a procedure that takes a vein from his leg and uses it to replace a cardiac artery. You say, lets not, I trust nitroglycerin, its worked before. Your dad dies.

This is comparable, but certainly not the same. Bottom line, a doctor probably knows better than you do. Even if it was a religious issue, we prosecutethose who kill children in "faith healing" all the time.

While it was her choice, there is no real reason for not having a C-section, short of hemophilia or AIDS. But, again, we lack details



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
I dont think infants can control how they are born.


I beg to differ, first pregnancy, 5 months, I went into premature labor, had to have my labor stopped and be on bed rest for the remaining 4 months or shorty was going pop out on me.

Second pregnancy, in the last month, I went into labor 4 weeks before my due date, the hospital doctor, drugged me up and stopped my labor since my water hadn't broke yet. sent me home in less than 24 hours my water broke and I had to be rushed to the hospital because my kid was coming out right there and then and there was no stopping him. The doctor couldn't believe it when he saw me again, he thought I was going to have at least another 2 weeks. so yes babies can pop out when they want to.
(just my exp. though)



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It wouldn't have been considered murder in prior times because the technology wasn't there, obviously. But now that we HAVE the technology to see what's going on inside a pregnant woman's stomach, and the foreknowledge to see if anything will go wrong, as well as the ability to do something if something may go wrong - I consider it murder.

If one has foreknowledge of events to come (which technically speaking, ultrasound has given us) and does nothing to change them - ah, nevermind, now we're getting into philosophy. Anyways, the fact is, she new that going natural something would happen. If she had not had ultrasound or anything else done, and then had gone natural, I would have had no problem with this. But she did have that all done, obviously, and that means she had the ability to do something, and she didn't. So, take what you will from that.

I'm just trying to stir up controversy and get you all to think about HER foreknowledge of events. Because it kind of is like looking into the future with what we have today to see our unborn children. We now can usually tell if problems will occur and have the ability to usually do something about. Without the technology, we have no foreknowledge of what's going on inside of a pregnant women's body. So, don't use the technology, then it can't possibly be murder, right? At least thats how I kind of see it. Well, I backtracked to the beginning of this poor paragraph - take what you will from what I have presented.



[Edited on 3-11-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion



if the babies wanted to pop out, they would have popped out naturally. She wouldn't have to have had a c-section.


I dont think infants can control how they are born.



No, they can't, but we can (most of the time) - at least in today's world.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Jesus EmbryonicEssence!!! Learn to use paragraphs man.

I saw my name in one of your posts but I'm not reading it as it just makes my eyes hurt.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I think that the woman's life shouldt ake precedence over that of a fetus that might not even survive birth. Eh, as I see it, it's her body, and no one should be forced to be "cut open". I figure forcible surgeries would hit a nerve when it comes to consipiracy nuts...






[Edited on 3/11/2004 by Flinx]



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I said at the end of it that it was a poor paragraph, I'm not trying to be articulate here.
Sorry. But I'll go back and put some spacing in.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Since this story is making so much news, it appears obvious that in times past this story would not be controversial (except if someone was accused of murder). This case opens up a new can of worms in my opinion. Can doctors be sued in the future if doing nothing would result in murder charges? Would this mean a pregnant woman could be operated on without her consent because a doctor ruled it would be murder otherwise? If I was on this jury I would want to carefully weigh the woman's sentiment if she wanted the baby dead with intent to kill or just hoped the baby would be born naturally. I think she'll get off.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Even if she was scared of getting cut, Im pretty sure they gas you to perform this procedure. You think she would do anything to save her childs life.


You'd think that, but you weren't in her position so how do you know the circumstances? There could be thousand different reasons for this such as her being afraid of being gassed as well, believing in natural birth e.t.c. Yet before we've heard from the woman herself, from the tone of your post, you've already judged her.

You preach once you've been in the same position yourself.


I would need more details of the situation to form an opinion of this woman. My responses are just speculations on the given situation.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Eh, probably. With Bush in charge.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join