Government Gone Too Far

[echo]

Neither of my children would have survived without c-sections. A midwife would never have been suffiecent in the birth of my daughter. I do not feel c-sections are over used, I have many friends that were forced into 36 or more hours of labor, only to end in c-sections.

I want to be clear. I would not chose to do what she did, additionally, I would not have an abotion unless I was at risk of death, even at that after a few weeks I feel is too late. I truly feel that anyone who uses abortion as a cure for making a mistake should be fixed. I also feel men should step up and take a bit of responsibilty too but ultimately it is the womans body and her responsibily.

But with all that being said:

1. I do not think they should outlaw abortion.

2. Not every woman who miscarries or has a procedure done too late should be charged with murder.

3. Mental illness should never be allowed to be used as a defense for anything.

4. Democrats are not the route of all evil.

5. It is refreshing to see soo many men have opinions about these issues.

6. You should be able to disagree with your doctors and do what you feel is right.

Finally I have seen pictures of this woman and a c-section scar should have been the least of her worries...catty I know but how I feel!

[Wolferz]

This will be my final opinion on this thread as any further discussion is counter productive.

We are not at liberty to say what this woman's mindset was during these events.

I mean, look at her picture. I can see that she has some serious issues in her life and now they are going to add another nightmare to her torture. People are shameless, corrupt little specks.Always looking to hide their skeletons by opening the locked closets of others.

My kids used to play that game. If one was in trouble, the one would try to bring up the previous sins of the sibling during the lecture.

When we point our finger at others, we have three more fingers pointing at ourselves.

try it, you will see what I mean.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

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'll be damned, I actually agree with you.

And i have to add my voice that mental illnesses and insanity pleas should not be acceptable for defense.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

This will be my final opinion on this thread as any further discussion is counter productive.

---

Then let me expand the topic a bit.

The implied solution to this problem is that the women be compelled to have the c-section. That opens up a pandora's box of ethical questions. For instance:

1. Do we compel people to undergo other procedures? Suppose a family member has kidney disease and a sibling refuses to donate one of his/her kidneys. Does the government forcibly remove the kidney from one sibling so that the other sibling can survive, perhaps using the forced c-section case as precedent?

2. A welfare mother repeatedly gets pregnant even though she cannot afford to maintain the family. Does the government forcibly sterilize her? There were already cases of judges sentencing people to Norplant implants, and that was contested in court as medically intrusive, ergo cruel and inhuman punishment. I don't recall the outcome.

3. A repeat sex offender is sentenced to chemical castration. Previously, a repeat sex offender asked the state to chemically castrate him, but can the state forcibly do this?

Where do we draw the line between people choosing their medical procedures and the government forcing them upon us? Of course, the most extreme examples of abuse are the Mengele Nazi experiments. The next most abusive are probably the American Tuskegee syphilis experiments against unknowing African-American men from the 1930s to the 1970s. This is where the slippery slope leads to.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolferz:

We are not at liberty to say what this woman's mindset was during these events.

---

True we only have the tiniest of info on this matter. What we are missing is what did those doctors tell her about her risks (we all know the babies risk) etc.. We'll just have to wait until those things come to light. But more importantly, in this topic, are the implications about this situation and what effects this will have on all of us when deciding our medical care and treatment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

The implied solution to this problem is that the women be compelled to have the c-section. That opens up a pandora's box of ethical questions. For instance:

---

Great bunch of thought provoking issues. Those will get everyones gray matter fired up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Echo:

5. It is refreshing to see soo many men have opinions about these issues.:

---

Goes to show we guys are not all a bunch of cave dwelling Neanderthals.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

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. [/QB]

---

Oh puhlease, LIS, I used a MIDwife, a medical professional.... Licensed by the state, who had all the equipment and drugs available to intervene if there had been ANY problems.

TOTALLY different scenario, This woman had the advice of 3 fricking doctors, WHO TOLD her with certainty, that if she did NOT have the C-section, her children could and would die.

She had a HIGH risk pregnancy, my wifes was NOT.

The woman CHOSE to ignore her doctors advice that would have saved the childs life. She was warned, and she ignored that warning.

The woman should be put up on charges of murder, and if not, then she should be up on charges for manslaughter.

She did it with forethought, and proper knowledge.

Oh, and by the way, I found out earlier today that the woman has had 2 other c-sections already, due to HIGH risk births, so SHE absolutely had NO excuse for not getting it done immediatley after the Doctor told her the problem, and that the babies were in distress.

She murdered her child, I hope they toss the book at her....

[Charles Lindsey]

AP story

quote:

---

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.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

---

Health News (Local - KPIX/KCBS)

quote:

---

The case raises a number of ethical issues that doctors rarely have to deal with, and may in fact clash with the legal world.

To begin with, doctors must do no harm. While every effort is made to protect the fetus, doctors also have an obligation to protect the pregnant woman who could be harmed physically, psychologically, or spiritually if surgery was performed against her will.

Secondly, a doctor can not force any patient, pregnant or not, to have a surgery to benefit someone else -- whether that's donating a kidney, donating bone marrow, or having a C-section.

These are just some of the difficult issues surrounding a very tragic case.

---

"Secondly, a doctor can not force any patient, pregnant or not, to have a surgery to benefit someone else "

Even an unborn child.

[Guest $iLk]

Jaguar... following your line of reasoning - the state should have the power to force the woman to have a surgery she does not want because a doctor who'm she may not trust wants her to.

She was told by her doctor that she needed to have a C-section. She probably was not familiar with the full dynamics of it - maybe she was. Maybe the thought of it scared her - and just maybe she felt like maybe the doctor was wrong.

Thus she sets up a second opinion - which isn't immediate because it takes a few days to get an appt.

We don't know that this doctor pounded the message into her head. All we know is that he recommended she have the procedure - of course she's probably been hearing this all year long because it is twins and has been telling herself that it'll be fine.

Doctor number 3 doesn't find a heartbeat - her world crashes down and she wants to have a C-section because after going against the advice of two of her docs she probably feels pretty stupid.

BUT - it was her choice to make whether or not she had a surgery. She shouldn't be forced to have a surgery she doesn't want. How long before it becomes common place to make abortions mandatory in younger teen pregnancies?

I do not believe in the right of someone to have an abortion. I also do not believe in forcing someone to take a medical procedure - even if it would result in saving the babies life.

What about an abortion saving the life of the mother? Why not charge a fetus for murder if it's mother is killed by it's birth?

Unless there is extreme evidence that she intended to kill her children through unsafe practices (did she binge-drink, was she doping up on crack?) then I don't feel a crime was commited. An error in judgement - but not a crime.

A crime is willfully going into a planned parenthood clinic with the intent to murder your child.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

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.

---

Boy, talk about equivocating.

It's murder in all cases except abortion. Is that a special interest, or what? The only other exemption that I can think of is self-defense. If a mother can be excused from killing the unborn, but viable, child, then why shouldn't she also be excused from killing the born child?

This is a political ruling, nothing more. No right-thinking person would condone that compartmentalization.

[Charles Lindsey]

I think Steve and I agree on a subject. Must be something in the water. It's scary.

quote:

---

Boy, talk about equivocating.

It's murder in all cases except abortion.

---

I noticed that too.

quote:

---

This is a political ruling, nothing more.

---

I "think" they are trying to maintain with Roe V Wade while making any other harmful action or inaction illegal.

If I refuse to help a drowning man am I commiting murder? What if I am scared he will drown me as well? If I refuse to perform CPR am I guilty of murder? (I don't know CPR) If I perform CPR and do it wrong or not soon enough and wind up damaging the person can I be charged with a crime? I beleive I have read cases where this has happened.

quote:

---

$ilk

What about an abortion saving the life of the mother? Why not charge a fetus for murder if it's mother is killed by it's birth?

---

Oh, good one. But then the mother did choose to get pregnant. Ouch, that one is hard to decide.

[Wolferz]

quote:

---

If I refuse to help a drowning man am I commiting murder? What if I am scared he will drown me as well? If I refuse to perform CPR am I guilty of murder? (I don't know CPR) If I perform CPR and do it wrong or not soon enough and wind up damaging the person can I be charged with a crime? I beleive I have read cases where this has happened

---

Here in lies the problem. This is true for alot of things.Id Est: If you are out driving in your car and you see where someone else has had an accident and you pass it by without stopping to render aid, you could be arrested and charged with a crime. Even though you were fearful for your own safety if you did stop.

Not to mention the other complications that could arise from rendering aid.

There is a veritable plethora of actions or inactions that our Do gooder Government nannies would see as a crime on our part.

We are all subject to arrest and prosecution every time we step out of our door.

Is it any wonder that many of us suffer from some type of mental illness?

While some may think that our lives are not strictly Orwellian in this day and age. Big Brother IS watching us every minute of our lives.

The sad part is that this protection racket is pretty much controlled by just a hand full of people compared to our population.

These people I speak of are not really elected by the people, they are placed in these seats of power. They don't govern anything. They rule

That's right folks...

The Blueblood Aristocracy of Jolly Olde England is alive and well in the United States of America. The British empire continues to grow and we are it's subjects.

ok, I went off on a tagent there, sorry.. Back to the subject..

I think big brother is placing too much emphasis on modern medicine. In bygone days this poor woman would have delivered two stillborn children or maybe 1 of each. who knows?

It all boils down to definition.

What does big brother now consider a viable human being?

Is it a child delivered by natural biological means? Cord cut, breathing on it's own?

Or is it anything from egg to fetus?

Biologically speaking, it could be said that every woman who does not have an egg fertilized and subsequently dumps it during a period is committing muder.

At what point in the cycle does this developing fetus become a human being eligible for protection under the laws?

uh oh, I think opened a really big can of worms there.

It will be interesting to see how these buffoons play this one out.

In the mean time, I'm going fishing. I need ammo

[echo]

quote:

___________________________________________

Biologically speaking, it could be said that every woman who does not have an egg fertilized and subsequently dumps it during a period is committing muder.

______________________________________________

I actaully had this thought just before I read it in your post. Makes you wonder.....

Here's a new thought I am having: A woman uses invetro fertilization. Three eggs were fertilized, she must take daily intravenous medication for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If not there will not be enough natural hormones to contine the pregnancy. Whether she soes do the shots daily or does not for fear of the needle. One does not survive. Because she knew her body would reject one if not all is has she attempted murder?

Test

[ 03-14-2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Wolferz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wolferz:

quote:

___________________________________________

Biologically speaking, it could be said that every woman who does not have an egg fertilized and subsequently dumps it during a period is committing muder.

---

______________________________________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by echo:

quote:

I actaully had this thought just before I read it in your post. Makes you wonder.....

Here's a new thought I am having: A woman uses invetro fertilization. Three eggs were fertilized, she must take daily intravenous medication for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If not there will not be enough natural hormones to contine the pregnancy. Whether she soes do the shots daily or does not for fear of the needle. One does not survive. Because she knew her body would reject one if not all is has she attempted murder?

---

I klike the way you think, Echo

Now we're getting into the Realm of Science and Science Fiction.

Big brother plays God, right down to the molecular level.

Go forth and multiply is legislated into law. Produce more taxpayers or be imprisoned.

Copulation cops call to find out if you're fulfilling your quota.

Early pregnancy test kits are are issued to every woman, to be returned for government inspection. Positive tests are issued a summons to report to the nearest medical facility for examination. How far will they go?

"these aren't really your children, they are protected individual future slaves..errr... taxpayers and we will raise them for you.

Everyone dies, some sooner than others.

What does the method of their departure matter?

[LostInSpace]

THE PEOPLE VS MELISSA ANN ROWLAND he brings up some really good points.

quote:

---

CTV.ca News Staff

"What's troubling about this case is that it seems such a trivial reason was given, and really in the end made very little sense. And maybe that shows a problem in the way it was handled at the hospital."

---

Finally someone is bringing that point up in the media.

quote:

---

Utah News

1: A nurse at Salt Lake Regional Medical Center also saw Rowland on Jan. 2 and said she heard Rowland say she left LDS Hospital because the doctors there wanted to cut her open "from breast bone to pubic bone," that this would "ruin her life" and that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that," court documents say.

She denies she was advised to have a C-section with the twins and also denies she refused to have one to avoid a scar. She said the twins were ultimately born by C-section. "I've never refused a C-section," Rowland said. "I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?"

------------------------------------------------

2: Marguerite Driessen, an associate professor of law at Brigham Young University who has four children of her own and is pro-life, said she sees problems with a case such as this.

"My concern here is that even in Utah, where the mother has the right to make these choices, that someone other than the mother will be second-guessing these decisions," Driessen said.

"In order to bring this case, the government is making a decision to go back and re-evaluate her decisions and medical advice and decide after the fact whether there is a basis for a murder case or not," Driessen said.

----------------------------------------------

3: The case also reflects on the recent legal brouhaha surrounding Parker Jensen, the Sandy youth who was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. His parents, Barbara and Daren Jensen, doubted the diagnosis, expressed beliefs that chemotherapy would harm Parker more than help him, and battled state officials vigorously over forced chemotherapy for Parker and later, for custody of the boy.

---

1: You have to take into account what is the motive for this nurse to make that claim when the defendant in this case is claiming she never made those comments. Is the nurse protecting the hospital and doctors from any action against them for dropping the ball in this case?

2:I agree with Marguerite Driessen completely.

3:Oh big brother at it again!

Jaguar, I hope you are not getting to hot under the collar over this and my viewpoint or other's. This has been a very good discussion, from everyone, and I'm sure we will still be discussing back and forth for some time over this. Airing one's viewpoint is what it's all about.

[ 03-14-2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

[Guest]

I am not hot under the collar.

The circumstances behind this whole fiasco will come out.

The woman ignored competent medical advice, and her child could have been saved, but because of her stupidity, one of the children died.

She should be at least charged with Manslaughter, if not murder. I am not one of these crazed antiabortionists, in the case of rape, incest, imminent danger to the mother etc, abortion is OK with me, but for birth control, I don't think so.

Anyway, she is an idiot, the least that should happen is her child is removed from her custody and a true responsible adult put in charge of it.

BTW, what do you all think of Echo's new avatar?

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

1:I am not hot under the collar.

2:Anyway, she is an idiot, the least that should happen is her child is removed from her custody and a true responsible adult put in charge of it.

3:BTW, what do you all think of Echo's new avatar?

---

1: Okay, cool, I was just making sure. With the enviornment today, I didn't want the possiblity of being hauled in for attempted murder for giving someone a heat attack from high blood pressure.

2:Read the Utah news... "said she came to Utah from Florida in November to have the babies and place them for adoption because she and the birth father could not take care of the children."

3:It's okay but I liked the unicorn better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolferz:

Biologically speaking, it could be said that every woman who does not have an egg fertilized and subsequently dumps it during a period is committing muder.

---

This is not something a women has to worry about. What about us guys? According to some if you wank off, you are also commiting a crime a murder. "thou shall not spill thy seed". Just think every one of those little guys is a potential human. A potential Einstien, Mozart, Marie Curie, Tax payer etc.. Go to Whitehouse.org and type in the search box "operation infinite purity". At first I thought this was a joke but when I searched for Americans for Purity now I'm not quite sure.

Go to

geocities.com/afpurity (Americans For Purity: Winning the war on wankers.)

Not quite sure if this is a joke yet. I hope it is.

Do your own searches also on this topic.

We are all Winston Smiths (1984 main character) but we just don't know it.

[ 03-14-2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

[Wolferz]

Gee, Jag,

Those are some rather harsh words regarding this woman. Good thing you won't be the judge and jury at her trial.

It's amazing how you preach Constitutional rights, but then throw the whole concept out the window when it suits your side of an arguement.

Could we get some fair and unbiased opinion on this topic, please?

Echo has a fine new avatar. I have always been fond of woodland folk.

Oh, as a side note. Isn't name calling something that children do when ridiculed or ridiculing?

I know I know, I have flung my fair share of less than flattering labels at people I have never met. For this I apologize and I'm working to stop doing it. I have a good excuse...I never grew up, Seems you haven't either, Jag

"nuff said on this topic I think.

The Government will do what the government wants to do. Most of the people involved with things like this,only thrust these events into the limelight for their own selfish reasons. Not because they are trying to champion a helpless person, Who wasn't yet a person in any constitutionally legal sense of the word.

The common sense approach to the definition of a living breathing citizen of this planet would be:

A human being of the species Homo Sapiens, who has successfully navigated the standard biological entrance into these collective United states, is breathing freely of free air and has been seperated from it's biological life support system and Having vital statistics duly recorded, on official state documents to indicate such event. and with signatures of all involved parties and witnesses, duly notorized.

That sounds pretty constitutional to me. How about you folks?

What did you just spew all over your monitor, Jag??

[Wolferz]

OMG I'm a murderer in the eyes of our Father!

All those wet dreams! When I hink of how many more whiners could have been created with all the seed that went down the drain in the washing machine, I am a monster! Lock me up and throw away the key!

I almost forgot about saying a gazillion times for a few premature ejaculations. ohhh the humanity!

[Guest Fox__Trot]

the wont get far in court this is a bullshit accusation people CHOOSE to have surgery performed they dont HAVE to have it performed...

simple as that hate to say it but if this turns up a guilty charge were talking about opening up lawsuits for: Drinking while pregnat, smoking while pregnat, doing ANYTHING possible to HARM the fetus during pregenacny will result in what manslaughter charges? or attempted murder charages?

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolferz:

Biologically speaking, it could be said that every woman who does not have an egg fertilized and subsequently dumps it during a period is committing muder.

---

This is not something a women has to worry about. What about us guys? According to some if you wank off, you are also commiting a crime a murder. "thou shall not spill thy seed". Just think every one of those little guys is a potential human. A potential Einstien, Mozart, Marie Curie, Tax payer etc..

---

To make matters worse only one sperm can fertilize the egg. All the rest are wasted. But this argument goes a little too far even though I started it back on page 1.

Millions of sperm is just nature's way of ummm redudancy. A woman's cycle is natural as well so I don't think we need to worry about murder charges on wasted material.

quote:

---

"thou shall not spill thy seed".

---

I like to try to figure these things out. Is this result of ancient thinking truly the result of doing something to not cause life? Wasting the seed so to speak? Or is it from jealously? "Hey! I'm stuck with crummy Mrs. Gomorrah. He's having way to much fun." Or does it use too much testosterone, thus causing a somewhat listless male who then doesn't pursue a female and "do the right thing"?

And the gay marriage thing. Marriages generally (but not always) produce children. So is being against gay marriage the result of that union not producing or even being able to produce children?

P.S. If we're gonna continue with the wasting seed discussion we need to be extra polite. Family forum and all.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

P.S. If we're gonna continue with the wasting seed discussion we need to be extra polite. Family forum and all.

---

Agreed, I tried to keep that subject low key with obscured refrences. I have also edit the link for Americans for Purity so that you need to type it in your browser.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Early pregnancy test kits are are issued to every woman, to be returned for government inspection. Positive tests are issued a summons to report to the nearest medical facility for examination. How far will they go?

---

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

quote:

---

BTW, what do you all think of Echo's new avatar?

---

I don't know. Something on this thread just started trying to put a cookie from brinkster.com on my PC.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

quote:

---

Early pregnancy test kits are are issued to every woman, to be returned for government inspection. Positive tests are issued a summons to report to the nearest medical facility for examination. How far will they go?

---

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

quote:

---

BTW, what do you all think of Echo's new avatar?

---

I don't know. Something on this thread just started trying to put a cookie from brinkster.com on my PC.

---

Well, I assure you, it's not her new avatar... LOL

[Steve Schacher]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Sites are doing all sorts of things with jpgs these days.

My privacy software is warninig me whenever sites try to put a cookie on my computer. I sometimes get warnings when photos are linked to sites, like from Corbis.

Unfortunately, once I reject the cookie, the software keeps rejecting the cookie until I log off and then back on again, which makes debugging to find the offending object difficult.

[echo]

I love it!!!! Hey wait aren't we changing the subject?