It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now how is this any different from abortion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
A woman who wished not to have a Caesarean section because she did not want to be cut had one of her twins die and she is now being charged with MURDER! Now any one here pro-choice and wish to elaborate on the difference between this woman being put in jail for not wishing to have her stomach cut open to some one who is six months pregnant and has her almost born babies' brains sucked out with a vacuum...

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040312/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged_9&printer=1




posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm actually going to alter my stance on this one a bit, after finding out more info...

Murder won't stick, I'll stick with that. Murder implies she premeditated the death of the baby...that can't be proven in this case. However, she SHOULD be charged with Manslaughter in this case.

I'm assuming that the prosecutor is grandstanding to make a career move, and is actually realistically looking at a Manslaughter charge...

No matter what though, this woman seems to have a history of mental illness, and may not have been in her right mind at the time, and this will likely be the cornerstone of the defense....

I doubt she'll serve a day for this....but she's already lost a child, which many would say is punishment enough....



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
what's the difference?

The world is one hell of a sick place to live.

Live with it.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I doubt she'll serve a day for this....but she's already lost a child, which many would say is punishment enough....


I agree. I dont think this woman will go to jail. The prosecuter in this case is just out to make name for herself. I dont think this woman should be tried in the first place.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
first off is anyone in their right mind when they kill some one?? And secondly do you think this will put a new stanard on aboration and limit it to the first couple months?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot

Originally posted by Gazrok
I doubt she'll serve a day for this....but she's already lost a child, which many would say is punishment enough....


I agree. I dont think this woman will go to jail. The prosecuter in this case is just out to make name for herself. I dont think this woman should be tried in the first place.

So it is fine to kill a baby even from neglagence, what about Scott Peterson who is being charged with the death of his baby who wasn't born yet??



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
If this had happened 100 years ago or maybe even 50 years ago, it would have just been another stillbirth and sad story.

Just because the advent of modern medical technology allows us to "play God" doesn't mean we have the right to judge like Him.

This woman experienced a natural, biological process (pregnancy), and due to another natural biological process (which is more common in cases of multiple pregnancies) this woman lost a child. That itself is sad enough. Now someone wants to lock her away for 25 years and deprive the surviving child its mother?

Now, the reasons or rational for her not getting caesarean section may be deplorable, selfish, and maybe even dispicable. But no adult American of sound mind should ever be forced into a major surgical procedure where there is risk of death or serious harm for any reason, if that person does not want it. This is America, for crying out loud.

Every American should have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment and let nature take its course, for better or worse.

And for all you religious people out there who are categorizing this as some kind of homicide and a sin in the eyes of God, ask yourself this. Why does God allow children to be stillborn? Why is He letting thousands of children be stillborn every day and week all over the world? Why is this woman any different that the poor women in other countries who can't afford medical attention? Is HE to blame for all those deaths, or are the women who bore those dead children to blame?

Don't play God if you don't have all the answers..........



[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Pyros]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samfashow
So it is fine to kill a baby even from neglagence, what about Scott Peterson who is being charged with the death of his baby who wasn't born yet??


He souldnt be charged with killing a baby since he wasnt even born. But thats just my opinion. This woman lost her baby.... she shouldnt be in jail for it.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
This reminds me of the people that refuse medical care for their children due to religious reasons. It is wrong. She was told 3 times the baby would die if she did not have this procedure, she stated she would rather it did die.

She killed it. It was alive, it could be saved (doctors confirmed that) so she is guilty. I personally hope she fries for it.

I know that is harsh but she as told it could be saved, as she did not want the scar of a c-section.

If not murder then I PRAY they take that other baby away from her, she has no right to have a child.

Abortion is different as it occurs much earlier in the pregnancy (even though I am not a fan). This child was ready to deliver, she was in labor therefore the baby was alive and she killed it through neglect

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by nativeokie]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I could have understood if she was scared of going under the knife, but it was purely cosmetic. She didn't want to have the scars a C-section would have left.
I can't accept that. If I had needed a C-section, I would had one, scars or not. I have no sympathy for this woman at all. I don't think she should be jailed though, because she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. Hopefully she has learned that appearance is not everything. Pity a child had to die before she learned that - if she actually did.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:13 AM
link   
She already has two children who were both born by C-section.
She denies that she was worried about scarring but was instead afraid of having the operation.
She apparently has a long history of mental illness.
The surviving twin was born with drugs & alcohol in her system.
Link

Sticky situation.
The stillborn infant was viable if she'd received proper medical treatment.
Negligent homicide may be the proper charge, but she'll probably plead insanity.

Poor kids.


-B.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Well, I'll change my stance and say that it wasn't straight up murder, but only because I was right all along about her being nucking futs - and I came to that conclusion quickly after reading the first articles in regards to the story. I came to it even faster after having seen the picture of her. Anyways, this article (well, the first information about it) was already talked about on another thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you can clearly see my far-out opinions (I was kind of having fun with it, to the "detriment" of others).

Nevertheless, I was right in my opinion when I said she wasn't fit to be a mother and this was before I just found out from samfashow's posted link that she did indeed have mental problems - the link to an article in the other thread had been "just" released news and didn't have too much detailed information about the woman. All it had was witnesses of how the women was acting to this strange situation.

She'll probably get away with insanity. Like I said in the other thread though - hope the surviving child will receive proper care.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Here is a hypothetical question. What if someone were dying and needed a kidney transplant to live. It was found that I am the only viable donor. Should I be forced to undergo surgery and give up one of my kidneys in order to save this persons life?



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
You shouldn't be forced. But by the time that actually happens to you (and it would be baseless if what I'm saying finally does happen), I'm sure we'll already be able to use anyone's kidney's and make them compatible or be able to grow a compatible one quickly.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Anyways, compatible donor's are usually found to be close family members who would do anything for someone they love. I would do it just to save another person's life. I can live with one kidney, even if I might not be able ingest as many things as I once could or perform as many physical activities.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I've heard on the late news tonight that she wasn't told she needed a c-section... So if they even get a case out of this it will put a new law over women who do anything to put their baby in harms way. Should a miscaarrage due to drugs, alchol or cigeretes be put over the mother's head. As if the mother who choses to have an aboration is not doing the same thing...



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:28 AM
link   
i have the solution. when boys hit puberty their nuts are cut off and frozen and kept in storage. when they grow older and mature and feel like settling down and having a kid the future mother and father go and take a test to see if they can get their child license. if they fail then they dont get to have a kid. their nuts are kept in storage until they are not an idiot. you can only have a child if you have a child license.

also this plan will not include me because i am not an idiot and i like having my nuts.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hmmm
i have the solution. when boys hit puberty their nuts are cut off and frozen and kept in storage. when they grow older and mature and feel like settling down and having a kid the future mother and father go and take a test to see if they can get their child license. if they fail then they dont get to have a kid. their nuts are kept in storage until they are not an idiot. you can only have a child if you have a child license.

also this plan will not include me because i am not an idiot and i like having my nuts.

Ahhh to cut off the source...! What a plan! First up on the chopping board George W. Bush...



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
She already has two children who were both born by C-section.

Personally, I think she should have been paying attention to them instead then instead of popping out more puppies like some kind of factory. This isn't the middle ages anymore where people die on average at 25-35 or lack medical science which can usually save them from untimely deaths. Sure babies are cute and stuff, but after you've had a couple that's enough out of you, go get a damn puppy if you want something cute around the house again. Make sure the kids you do have are raised correctly too first!!!


She denies that she was worried about scarring but was instead afraid of having the operation.
She apparently has a long history of mental illness.

Ummm, ok, well there ya have it. You're mentally ill, then NO MORE BABIES until that problem is either fixed first or properly addressed and deemed to be sufficient for raising children.


The surviving twin was born with drugs & alcohol in her system.
Link

Sticky situation.
The stillborn infant was viable if she'd received proper medical treatment.
Negligent homicide may be the proper charge, but she'll probably plead insanity.

Poor kids.


-B.


Well, personally I'd have to agree with her if she pleads insanity, cause she's f*cking kook. Therefore, being found insane and dangerous to not only herself but to her children and possibly others, she should be locked up and treated. I don't mean some half @SS 'get out of jail' type a thing either, before anyone throws that in my face by assuming something different.

Had this woman not been a Mentally Ill, Mother of Two, Who was Using Drugs and Booze while pregnant, and simply been pregnant only, I think it's fully within her right to choose the type of birth she desired for the child. If she chose wrong, even against Doctors Advice, she shouldn't be charged with a crime. If of sound mind and judgement, she has total say as to what happens during HER PREGNANCY & HER CHILD'S BIRTH.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I've got to say samfashow hit the nail on the head about the subject of legal precedence. If and thats a big if this woman was convicted on the narrow merits of justice in her particular case its not a far leap to have more women later convicted for much less egrigious errors of judgement during pregnancy. Could be smoking or something like negligent homocide because of car wreck. If her case existed in a vacuum and did'nt set legel precedence I might have another opinion - but thats not how our system works.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join