Skip to comments.
Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge
CNN.com ^
| March 12, 2004
| Associated Press
Posted on 03/12/2004 7:07:14 AM PST by LiberalSlayer99
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
I have some real problems with this prosecution. First of all, when does the state have the right to dictate that someone MUST undergo a surgical procedure...one that is not without risk. Secondly, if they are charging her based on the fact that she ignored medical advice, they'd have to charge every crack mother, every mother that drinks during her pregnacy, etc..
This is not an abortion/pro-choice issue. No matter how flawed her reasoning for NOT having a C-Section, the individual should have the right to decline a surgical procedure. Where do individual rights end?
On a lighter note...somebody got drunk enough to impregnate her?
NOTE: I posted the CNN link because it included the lovely pic! Go to the link. Fox News didn't include a pic of this babe.
To: LiberalSlayer99
I agree that this prosecution is probably wrong, but I would go after the idiot who consumed enough liquor to have sex with that creature in the first place. I didn't know one could drink that much and survive.
2
posted on
03/12/2004 7:13:29 AM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: LiberalSlayer99
What about the surviving twin? Won't he have to walk on eggshells throughout his formative years? Imagine what this "mother" might do if he was somehow responsible for a broken nail or a bruised shin!
"Im sorry, mommy! Don't KILL me!"
To: LiberalSlayer99
but if a doctor had pulled the infant out halfway and sucked its brain out, it would have been called a "late term abortion" (partial birth)
4
posted on
03/12/2004 7:25:40 AM PST
by
Mr. K
To: LiberalSlayer99
She's a pig, but the government should not be able to force people to have an operation, obviously.
5
posted on
03/12/2004 7:27:06 AM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: LiberalSlayer99
LOL! That's some picture.
I can see why she was worried about ruining her good looks.
6
posted on
03/12/2004 7:28:00 AM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Pukin Dog
When did Steve Buscemi become a woman and get pregnant? How did I not hear about this?
7
posted on
03/12/2004 7:28:24 AM PST
by
ISonnet
To: dead
She's a pig, but the government should not be able to force people to have an operation, obviously.Are you familiar with the Christian Science types who will let their children die rather than seek medical treatment in some cases? This comes very close to that.
8
posted on
03/12/2004 7:31:49 AM PST
by
af_vet_rr
To: LiberalSlayer99
This is a dark side of the pro-life position. If fetii have the full rights of individuals, and their full protection by The State, then pregnant women become wards of The State. If this woman can rightly be charged with murder, then who can stop The State from forcing her to eat vegetables, or exercising, or quitting smoking, or ... ? After all, the fetus has rights, and those rights must be protected. Does the pro-life position really want to go there, seeing how eagerly The State uses powers it gets?
9
posted on
03/12/2004 7:36:16 AM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: af_vet_rr
It's not really that close. In this case, the woman refused an operation on herself that could save her child. It's morally repugnant, but the law shouldn't have a say.
A closer analogy would be somebody who could save a life by donating bone marrow, but refuses. The person's a jerk, but the government shouldn't be able to tie them down and tap their bones against their will.
10
posted on
03/12/2004 7:37:18 AM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: LiberalSlayer99
That lady didn't get beat with the ugly stick, she got beat by the whole dang ugly forest!!
11
posted on
03/12/2004 7:42:37 AM PST
by
trussell
(Member: Viking Kitty Society;New Charter member: Troll Patrol...)
To: coloradan
Take it a step further:
If you are found to be a perfect match to someone who needs a kidney transplant but you refuse. If that person dies, can you be charged with murder?
Lots here to think about.
12
posted on
03/12/2004 7:44:08 AM PST
by
Lokibob
(All typos and spelling errors are mine and copyrighted!!!!)
To: LiberalSlayer99
The woman made a very bad decision.
Then the prosecutor made a very bad decision.
It seems if she had decided to kill the fetus deliberately it would be abortion and therefore OK, but since she did it through negligence it is now murder. I am not impressed with the legal logic.
This case could hurt the Republican party nationally if it goes on much longer. Even many Republican women won't want to concede to doctors and prosecutors the right to tell them what to do with their own bodies.
13
posted on
03/12/2004 7:45:58 AM PST
by
doug9732
To: LiberalSlayer99
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.I am pro-life, but it has always puzzled me how they can have it both ways. This ruling makes no sense.
To: LiberalSlayer99
"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said. I agree with you and the article. At the worst, it's negligent homicide. Murder ? No way.
15
posted on
03/12/2004 7:49:16 AM PST
by
jimt
To: dead
Considering the tremendous emotional/hormonal situation involved in pregnancy, who knows what went on? I think we'd better be careful with this though. This is really bad precedent.
16
posted on
03/12/2004 7:51:19 AM PST
by
cyborg
(In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape.)
To: Mr. K
Yes, she could have aborted both babies and the state would have said no problem.
To: LiberalSlayer99
I'd rather look at a scar than that ugly face. I do find it rather ironic that if she'd had them both killed by a
partial birth abortion the day before she delivered she'd not be facing any charges at all.
18
posted on
03/12/2004 9:09:46 AM PST
by
Jaxter
("Guys like John Kerry spit on guys like me…I've been waiting 33 years to spit back.")
To: LiberalSlayer99
First of all, when does the state have the right to dictate that someone MUST undergo a surgical procedure...one that is not without risk. Secondly, if they are charging her based on the fact that she ignored medical advice, they'd have to charge every crack mother, every mother that drinks during her pregnacy, etc.. If a fetus has the status of a person, then the State must intervene in these cases. Not only that, exposure of the fetus to second hand smoke could be grounds for felony charges against the mother.
19
posted on
03/12/2004 9:12:00 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: cyborg
This is really bad precedent.A very, very bad precedent.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson