LostInSpace Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin . What happened to a patients right to chose? Update:The autopsy showed that the one twin baby died 2 days before the birth. Another example of our government going too far in my opinion. "The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University."
Darkling Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin . What happened to a patients right to chose? Update:The autopsy showed that the one twin baby died 2 days before the birth. Another example of our government going too far in my opinion. "The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University." First of all, the woman was crazy. quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.And second, let's not leave out pertinent statements. You are starting to sound like a Democrat, tell only half the truth to make your point.
Cruis.In Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 ok she is accused of murder, the doctor said he could have saved the unborn twin if the c section had been performed...well why didn't they just knock her out and cut her open and take it out? to stop her from committing murder... does anyone see my point?? If someone is ABOUT to commit murder, and someone else knows it...they should do all in their power to stop them, notify authorities, whatever....so if this mother committed murder by not having the c-section, to stop her why didn't the doctors do what was needed... what a bunch of crap. maybe if there were different laws she could be guilty of something...but murder...please. immoral unethical yes...but since when have immoral and unethical things been a crime? politicians and prince charles still roam the streets.
weegee_101 Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 I agree, its a bit extreme to convict her of murder. If she is convicted of murder then so should her doctors as well, perhaps as assisting in the murder. Honestly though, murder is a little extreme. Personally, I'm pro-choice. Now, if a loved one was pregnant, I would be totally against her having an abortion, but the choice is up to her. If she wanted to have an abortion, fine, let her, it doesn't mean I'd agree. This right here, is against pro-choice. Big Brother needs to stop ******* peeking down on our lives, its really starting to get on my last nerve. Big Brother is watching... Oh, and Darkling, not all democrats only tell half the truth. Here we call those democrats dumbocrats in my school's Young Democrats Society, because they're destroying our (used to be) fine party. ADDITION: I doubt this has to do with this case however, but some women believe in "true" birth, where c-sections and other new age methods of birth (and concerning birth, like ultrasounds and such). Most women like that (I know one personally) would typically stand their ground, even if they knew that a baby would die.
echo Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 I speak only from my mind...just thoughts...If the doctor cut her against her wishes I belive he would be the one defending his licence. I had to sign a ton of forms allowing my two c-sections. If this woman is indeed crazy (I have my own words for her) someone somewhere should have stepped in to help her. To me it didn't sound like a religiuos or strong belief to deliver naturally. I also feel that she didn't have the right information. C sections have come a long way. They used to cut straight up and down, it sounds to me that's what she thought would happen. Modern C section scars aren't soo bad. Someone should have taken the time to show her. Medicine has advanced sooo much in pregnancy. heck they can operate on fetus' now. I would hate to think if someone denied a fetus surgery and later miscarried that they would be charged with murder. I am pro-choice to some extent. I think within a specific time frame and certain women, abortions are acceptable. I do not belive they should be used as birth control and I would never have one, but a I think a raped woman or molested teenager should have the right to chose. However if you are almost to term and have the capcity to help the life of a child, becasue after a couple months that is what you have in there, you should. Muderer? I can't say...would I have done that? no. Do I hope she gets help...yes It's sad. [ 03-14-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Steve Schacher Posted March 12, 2004 Report Posted March 12, 2004 I'm surprised that NOW and Planned Parenthood hasn't jumped all over this yet. They (NOW) made their first misstep when the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child washed ashore in California. The DA immediately filed two murder charges against Scott Peterson, and NOW knee-jerk reacted by saying that the unborn child was not a person and therefore cannot have been murdered. She was protecting NOW's turf for the partial-birth abortion argument. Outrage ensued, and NOW backed off their claim. However, the abortion lobby is pushing hard again on partial-birth abortion. It will be interesting to see how, on the one hand, a woman can be accused of murder for a child that was stillborn (declined medical treatment that was injurious to herself), while on the other hand, claiming that it is not murder to perform a late-term abortion. The hypocricy from the Left on this issue reeks.
LostInSpace Posted March 13, 2004 Author Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Darkling: 1:First of all, the woman was crazy. 2: And second, let's not leave out pertinent statements. You are starting to sound like a Democrat, tell only half the truth to make your point. 1: True, that is if you believe her lawyer's comment. I don't have the facts about that to make an accurate judgement. Remember an insanity plea is the usual MO of a defendant if they can get away with. Secondly, if she had a history of mental illness don't you think that all the hospitals and doctors she's been to would have picked up on that or at least investigated that aspect of it. Since they didn't, other than the woman in question, there was alot of ball dropping here and everyone involved should be held just as accountable. 2: You are right and I stand corrected on that. No need to be mean to me calling me a Democrat! quote:Originally posted by Echo: I would hate to think if someone denied a fetus surgery and later miscarried that they would be charged with murder.That is the fear of what the government may do now. Interfering in prenatal care and more restrictions on reproductive rights. I for one do not think the government should interfere in these matters at all that is between the person involved and their maker. Humans have carried on giving birth, miscarriages, women dying in child birth etc... long before our big brother government was in existence.
Darkling Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee: I agree, its a bit extreme to convict her of murder. .... I'm pro-choice. .... some women believe in "true" birth, where c-sections and other new age methods of birth. Most women like that would typically stand their ground, even if they knew that a baby would die. So what you are saying is that if someone knowingly let her baby die. There should be no consequences because you are pro-choice. Let's not forget that we are talking about a living breathing child, a BABY, the most helpless of us. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy, yet, the littlest ones of our race don't matter, why, because they can't vote, so they don't count. When did we as a society become so cold and calloused as to say that it's OK for a woman to "Kill her Baby" because that baby is dependent on said woman's body? Today there are all sorts of methods of Birth control, if you don't want to get pregnant, then use one of them, if you are going to be so irresponsible as to not use them and get pregnant, then I'm sorry but you should NOT be able to kill her baby because you screwed up. And it shouldn't be OK to kill your baby becuase you don't want a certain procedure done. Someone here talked about Rape and all that, but let's face reality, of Millions of Abortions proformed every year, less than 1 percent are attributed to Rape, so let's get real people. The weakest form of an argument is to argue from extremes, and that my friends is about as extreme as it gets. The norm is the woman who doesn't want to take Birth Control because it makes her "Fat" get's pregnant, then proceeds to kill her kid. That's reality.
LostInSpace Posted March 13, 2004 Author Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Darkling: ......The norm is the woman who doesn't want to take Birth Control because it makes her "Fat" get's pregnant, then proceeds to kill her kid. That's reality. It takes two to tango. It's not just the responsibilty of the women. You've heard of condoms and male birth control pills? It's about time men started taking the other half of the responsibilty for pregnancies on this planet. Keep it zipped up or put on that condom and/or take the birth control (when it becomes available by 2005) The Male Contraceptive Pill or you are just as culpable as the woman is into what happens to that baby or fetus. [ 03-12-2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
Guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 I agree 100% with Darkling... See, something else we agree on, wow, this could become a habit.... The woman was warned that if she did not get a C-section, that her child would be in extreme danger, she said no, because she didn't want her body scarred, COME ON, can we get real here? My first child was a C-section, sure, the scar tissue bugs my wife every once in a while, but the scar is hardly noticeable. The woman CHOSE for her baby to die, she is culpable, and should be held responsible for that decision. 1st degree murder is VERY real in this case. She made the choice NOT to have the C-section, after being told by 3 different doctors that she needed one. When she finally had the C-section it was too late. She waited 11 days before finally coming to that decision. The baby had been dead 2 days. She is responsible for the death of that baby, it was her choice. She murdered her child, by choosing NOT to have the C-section when her doctor and another Doctor, and ANOTHER doctor told her she needed to.
Steve Schacher Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Let's not forget that we are talking about a living breathing child, a BABY, the most helpless of us. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy, yet, the littlest ones of our race don't matter, why, because they can't vote, so they don't count.Sshhhh... you're peeking a little too closely at their dirty little secret. Three of the Democrats' largest constituency groups are the National Organization of Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood, and The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). To them, late-term abortion is a cause worth fighting for, because to oppose it is to allow the foot in the door for further abortion limits. Therefore, a child in the womb and not yet delivered is not a person with legal standing. The odd dichotomy is that the Liberals cry about a woman's "right to choose" prior to the child being born, and then they take away all "right to choose" regarding the parenting and schooling of that child once it's born.
XOR Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 is there any point to democrats anymore? Havent they done enough damage already? or is it just that people cant have a good thing without turning it into some perverse abomination?
Guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: .... and then they take away all "right to choose" regarding the parenting and schooling of that child once it's born. And then you get to the REALLY dirty little secret that they don't want you to know about. You as a parent DO HAVE a choice. Your child is NOT required to go to public school, in the state of Washington, where I live, all I have to do is tell the state, that I am opting my children OUT of the public school system and am homeschooling. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the NEA or the public school system can do about it. They have tried, as a matter of fact, one of the superintendents actually went after some homeschooling parents and tried to take the children on charges of Truancy. Believe that stuff? The school district was sued, the Super fired, and the homeschooling parents now have a nice little college fund for their children. They may like you to believe that you have no choice, but you do. You can CHOOSE to homeschool, and there isn't a thing that they can do about it. It's YOUR money, it's YOUR Child, it's YOUR government, never let the liberal/socialists fool you into thinking otherwise. YOU have the power to stop them in their tracks, but they don't want you to know that.
Charles Lindsey Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 This was a miscarriage from a natural pregnancy.
LostInSpace Posted March 13, 2004 Author Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: She is responsible for the death of that baby, it was her choice. She murdered her child, by choosing NOT to have the C-section when her doctor and another Doctor, and ANOTHER doctor told her she needed to. You are taking a rather simplistic view of C-section itself. It's not all cut and dry as people think. It's still a major risk even more so than vaginal births. You of all people Jaguar should know better than that. Do the research. More women die following c-section than vaginal birth, probably due more to preexisting conditions than the surgery itself "However, the women who died were more likely than those who survived to have had cardiac, renal, mental health , or severe preeclampsia complications and to have had medically indicated induction or labor." Sacrifice the patient for the outcome? That in itself is cold hearted and callous. When Are C-Sections the Best Delivery Option? "Risk of C-Sections Although the majority of C-sections occur without significant complications, the procedure is not risk-free. Uterine infections, blood loss, and prolonged hospitalization are more common with C-sections than vaginal births. Maternal mortality associated with C-sections is three to seven times greater than deaths associated with vaginal deliveries. The leading cause of death from C-sec-tions is pulmonary embolus (blood clot to the lung). Although the mother's existing medical conditions may contribute to the need for a C-section, those same conditions may compound the risks of the procedure. For example, obesity is a risk factor for both C-section and the development of a blood clot." Do you think now those doctors were thinking more in the best interest of that woman or the babies she was carrying? We've all heard of horror stories about hospitals. You can't overlook what kind of mortality rates these hospitals have. Are they competent Doctors etc.. This will all come into play in that the trial as well. After being allegedly told "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."I'd run too if I was told that! And who among us can say that it's not a big deal or even life threatening to undergo any C-section procedure. [ 03-13-2004, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
Guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 2 out of a thousand C-sections actually die from the procedure LIS. It is VERY low risk and a woman can have a vaginal birth after C-section, if her Doctor knows anything about the procedure. My wife had a C-section, I have seen more of my wife then I ever thought I should. The woman was in her twenties, was more then healthy enough to have the procedure. She told the nurse that she didn't want to get a scar LIS. I mean, COME ON, and then when she was finally convinced to do the procedure, because it was the ONLY way to save her other baby, it was too late for the 1st one. This woman CHOSE to have her baby die, with forethought and malice. It is murder, and she should be charged with it. I have done the research LIS, because the fact of the matter is, we wanted to know the true risk of a natural birth with our 2nd child. We FORCED the doctor,, YES, FORCED the doctor to let her have it naturally. Then, because we got sick of Doctors and all their BS about check this, check that, test for this, test for that, medical intervention here, medical intervention there, we had my 3rd child at HOME, in OUR bed, with a midwife. Yes, LIS, I know FAR more about the risks etc then most people. I believe that C-Section is used FAR too often, because Docotrs are LAZY, but this women was in a high risk pregnancy, her babies were in trouble, she was told what she had to do and she chose NOT to. The risk to her was low, the risk to her babies was unacceptably high. She chose to murder one of her children, she should be charged with it and used as an example...
Charles Lindsey Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:I have done the research LIS, because the fact of the matter is, we wanted to know the true risk of a natural birth with our 2nd child. We FORCED the doctor,, YES, FORCED the doctor to let her have it naturally. Then, because we got sick of Doctors and all their BS about check this, check that, test for this, test for that, medical intervention here, medical intervention there, we had my 3rd child at HOME, in OUR bed, with a midwife. And if that child had died you would now be charged with murder because you went against medical advice. You made a choice and have a surviving child. Great for you. The woman in the article made a choise and had a miscarriage. Everyone is so caught up with she didn't want a scar. What about people that don't beleive in extraordinary measures to fix something?
LostInSpace Posted March 13, 2004 Author Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: I have done the research LIS, because the fact of the matter is, we wanted to know the true risk of a natural birth with our 2nd child. We FORCED the doctor,, YES, FORCED the doctor to let her have it naturally. Then, because we got sick of Doctors and all their BS about check this, check that, test for this, test for that, medical intervention here, medical intervention there, we had my 3rd child at HOME, in OUR bed, with a midwife. Yes, LIS, I know FAR more about the risks etc then most people. I believe that C-Section is used FAR too often, because Docotrs are LAZYHmmm lazy are you sure it's not for other factors like making more money. In fact, HMO's are the ones that started pushing hospitals and doctors to do VBAC's (vaginal birth after c-section) to cut costs. Glad you saw the light about doctors. And congratulations on a successful natural home birth. Alot and I mean alot of people around the world are opting for just that. "The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said." Does that sound like malicious or criminal intent? If that was the case, she could have easily stayed home and not done anything about the condition and have done with it. She only balked about doing anything when the C-section was brought into play. Why is that? She also denies it was about the scars " saying she already had scars from earlier C-sections." There's alot more to this than we know. This will be interesting to see pan out in court. Anyway, I'm going to defer this discussion, for now, about the case because frankly neither of us don't have enough information about either the woman (emotional, mental and/or physical health ) or the hospitals and doctors involved and any medical records they maintained about her or the nurses that keep making statements. I just hope the media keeps up on this and not fall by the way side cause it's lost it news worthiness. quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: And if that child had died you would now be charged with murder because you went against medical advice. You made a choice and have a surviving child. Great for you. The woman in the article made a choise and had a miscarriage.Good point I missed that one. Well lets see what happens now also with home births and going against the doctor's wishes. [ 03-13-2004, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
Wolferz Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 Ahhh, yes... Government at it's lowest errr best. So what happened to Doctor Patient confidentiality? It seems the medical professionals threw that one right out the window. If the woman had a history of mental illness then the medical professionals could have intervened, and according to most laws in most states regarding this, she could have been held for observation and subsequently hospitilized. this one isn't about pro-choice concerning abortion or any of that malarky. Doctors are not God. Could they say with 100% conviction(proof) that the child would have lived after the procedure? My opinion is this, the medical professionals should be held as accessories, if this is ultimately judged as murder. Unborn children are just that, unborn children. If our laws begin reaching to in utero humans, then every woman on the planet who has had an abortion, simply because she didn't want to be bothered raising the child, is a murderer, right along with the doctors who provided the service. Bottom line... "It's not for us to judge." "It's not for our court system to judge. The ultimate and only judge we all have to face is ourselves. I can cite another example.. I suffered a seizure last November and was hospitilized. The Neurolgist who was supposedly treating me is locally considered a Quack. I spoke with my regular physician about it. Within 30 minutes the nurses were removing the I.V. and I was leaving the hospital Against medical advice. I was required to sign a waiver releasing the facility of any responsibilty for what could later happen to me. Now if I died later because of my decision,Would I be charged with murdering myself? Or just listed as a suicide? Just because a Doctor tells you you need surgery for anything, are we now legally bound to have it done.? Are this woman's rights concerning her body to be lightly tossed aside now, simply because it involved an in utero human?? Let the free-for-all begin..
Darkling Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: And if that child had died you would now be charged with murder because you went against medical advice. You made a choice and have a surviving child. Great for you. The woman in the article made a choise and had a miscarriage.Good point I missed that one. Well lets see what happens now also with home births and going against the doctor's wishes. You are oversimplifing here. I don't think that Jag & his wife told the doctors "I'd rather see the baby die before taking your advice" Also, Jag did use a Midwife in his home delivery. Midwives are HIGHLY trained professionals, they're not just a nurse with a day of extra training as some people seem to think they are. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that doctors use C-sections way too much. Fact is however that this woman went to 4 different hospitols, 3 different doctors and a half dozen nurses told her the same thing, that if she didn't have a C-section, she would lose one of the babies. I mean come on, what the heck was this woman going to do, leave them in there? Someone else here was talking about the "risks" of a C-section, well what's the risk of having 2 dead corpses inside your body? What if this woman refused to EVER have the procedure done, then what? Leave 2 dead people inside her because that's her choice? Come on people there's choice and then there's you don't have a f***ing choice!
Guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: quote:I have done the research LIS, because the fact of the matter is, we wanted to know the true risk of a natural birth with our 2nd child. We FORCED the doctor,, YES, FORCED the doctor to let her have it naturally. Then, because we got sick of Doctors and all their BS about check this, check that, test for this, test for that, medical intervention here, medical intervention there, we had my 3rd child at HOME, in OUR bed, with a midwife. And if that child had died you would now be charged with murder because you went against medical advice. You made a choice and have a surviving child. Great for you. The woman in the article made a choise and had a miscarriage. Everyone is so caught up with she didn't want a scar. What about people that don't beleive in extraordinary measures to fix something? Give me a break, she did NOT have a miscarriage, she finally had the C-section, the babies were removed, one was already dead, the other survuved. And please give me a freaking break, I had a midwife and was prepared to get my wife to the hospital, 5 minutes away, if there had been complications. You guys need to get a grip. The woman was told that her babies were at risk, and could die if she did not have the C-section right then. She CHOSE not to, she then went to ANOTHER Doctor, who told her the same thing, this was 5 days later, then she went to another doctor, 6 days later, who finally convinced the sick ***** to have the operation, 11 days AFTER her the first doctor told her to have the C-section. She fonally had the C-section because one of the babies heartbeats was missing. Well, sure enough, one of the babies was dead, and they were removed Via C-section, NO MISCARRIAGE....
Charles Lindsey Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:You are oversimplifing here.Perhaps quote:I don't think that Jag & his wife told the doctors "I'd rather see the baby die before taking your advice"I don't either. But everything went great so it's ok. What if something had gone wrong? Would it be murder or a miscarriage? But this line of reasoning needs to stop. I am uncomfortable talking about someone personally. At what point does it stop? Women who take the pill are committing murder because that egg has no chance of coming to fruition? I have millions of sperm. Am I committing murder by using a condom? Wolferz is right. If this woman had such a history of mental illness the medical profession should have done something.
Guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Good point I missed that one. Well lets see what happens now also with home births and going against the doctor's wishes. THis is NOT a good point, because A: I used a midwife, B: I had a hospital nearby that we would have gone to if there had been complications. You guys are not getting this. Let me give you the timeline here. Jan5 th or so, She went to her doctor and he told her that the babies were in distress, and that they should be removed via C-section ASAP. She told the nurse that she didn't want scars and left. January 11th or so, 6 days later, she went to another hospital, that doctor told her the SAME thing, C-section RIGHT now, or the babies would be in danger or possibly die. January 16th or so, 11 days AFTER she was initially told that she needed the C-section or her babies might die, one heartbeat was found, the other was missing, she had an emergency C-section, FINALLY, and one of the babies had died 2 days earlier, and the other just barely survived. She has since been arrested for first degree murder, for ignoring medical advice that WOULD have SAVED the child. 3 doctors, NOT 1, but 3 Doctors told her the SAME thing, numerous nurses, etc. ALL told her that if she did NOT have this operation her children would die. One of them did, she murdered it by IGNORING the doctors advice. 3 of them!! And finally HAD the C-section.
LostInSpace Posted March 13, 2004 Author Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Wolferz: Could they say with 100% conviction(proof) that the child would have lived after the procedure?They couldn't even say with 100% conviction that she would live after the procedure. And if you go by what's in the news reports now, she was even at more risk of not surviving the procedure "However, the women who died were more likely than those who survived to have had cardiac, renal, mental health , or severe preeclampsia complications and to have had medically indicated induction or labor." Also another example of C-section complications C-Section Raises Risk of Future Stillbirth. quote:My opinion is this, the medical professionals should be held as accessories, if this is ultimately judged as murder.Which is why I believe this was done to her to protect the medical establishment from another malpractice lawsuit and to deflect any culpability from it. quote:Just because a Doctor tells you you need surgery for anything, are we now legally bound to have it done.? Not that I'm aware of. You are made aware of your circumstance by your doctor and it's up to you on how to proceed. No matter how emphatic the doctor is of one procedure over another. That woman made a decision that she deemed was in "her" best interest at that time and neither you, I or anyone else should be allowed to second guess the outcome. quote:Are this woman's rights concerning her body to be lightly tossed aside now, simply because it involved an in utero human??Welcome to the nanny society. Next time you go to the library or see this in a book store Government Nannies or read thisGOVERNMENT NANNIES quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: THis is NOT a good point, because A: I used a midwife, B: I had a hospital nearby that we would have gone to if there had been complications. You guys are not getting this. Let me give you the timeline here.I get it I just don't agree. Okay say on B that complications did set in and, god forbid, the baby died on your way to the hospital and since you "FORCED the doctor,, YES, FORCED the doctor to let her have it naturally. Then, because we got sick of Doctors and all their BS about check this, check that, test for this, test for that, medical intervention here, medical intervention there," and say that the baby's death could have been prevented from the numerous tests and medical intervention that you so fervently avoided. Under this woman's predicament you would be arrested and charged with murder because they didn't like the choices you made and you put the baby in that predicament and forcibly ignored medical advice to deliver by hospital or C-section birth. [ 03-13-2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
Charles Lindsey Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 quote:NO MISCARRIAGE....Semantics. Use stillborn if you prefer.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now