Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[hot_pastrami]

Ah, you've gotta love Utah.

*cough*

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.

[lumberjim]

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.

[OnyxCougar]

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)?

[OnyxCougar]

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.

Like kill a non-consenting baby that could have survived?

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[Troubleshooter]

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?

[ladysycamore]

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?

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!

"The case could affect abortion rights..."

Mother fuck! If that even happens...

[Troubleshooter]

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

*cough*

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.

[ladysycamore]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[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.

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.

[Clodfobble]

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?

[ladysycamore]

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.

[quzah]

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.