Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You people.

Surgery is a deeply personal event and decision. Refusing to go under the knife doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you an unfit mother.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Should Christian scientists be held responsible on some level if their kid dies because they refuse to take the kid in for medical treatment?

Absolutely. The State need not stand by while people's stupid superstitions endanger human life.

[St Leo]

Are Caesarean Sections covered under whatever equivalent the US has to nationalized healthcare?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


Absolutely. The State need not stand by while people's stupid superstitions endanger human life.

First, the state needs to offer universally free healthcare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Charge her with something... not murder, perhaps (it's probably something they can plea down with), but negligent homicide or something. Give her a nice little fine.

[Capt Dizle]

Stuie cracks me up.

Really, I do not see any difference between this and abortion. Or rather, abortion, which is the intentional murder of a child is far worse.

Of course that is my opinion and not the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First, the state needs to offer universally free healthcare.

Who says her insurance wouldn't have covered a C-section?

[Guynemer]

From a legal perspective, perhaps the law students can help me out:

We know the state can limit what surgical procedures a pregnant woman can elect to undergo (abortion). But can the state legally enforce a pregnant woman to undergo a surgical procedure she does not wish to have?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Guy: dunno

It would depend on the laws of the state. It could be stated that the woman, who did not want an abortion, had a duty to to do everything she reasonably could to protect the life of the children. And it could be said that a C-section was a reasonable procedure... maybe her insurance covered it and all she'd have was a small scar. I guess the difference is in her intention of having the children and not aborting them, it falls on the line. It's a tough case, basically.

[Ned]

This is inconsistent with a woman's right to kill her children for "health" reasons. Obviously, concern for her beauty is a legitimate health concern that we all should support.

(I wonder how the Supremes would deal with this hypocrisy.)

[Guynemer]

And here we are, set to discuss Roe v. Wade in my law class today... how serendipitous.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Guy, make me proud... argue AGAINST it, but say you are PRO-CHOICE. You'll either piss off everyone or gain the respect of everyone .

I don't see many pro-choice people who are against Roe like myself, though .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Saying that you'd rather have your kids die than have an unsightly scar on your body goes along way toward justifying that claim though.

So says the DA. I don't see anyone quoting the mother as saying that. I see a nurse telling her it would ruin her life. That would be a fairly strong motivation not to go under the knife.

Boris, forcing Christian Scientist's to treat thir children is different, as children are wards and cannot make competnet decisions for themselves. It's one thing for an adult to refuse treatement, its another for an adult to refuse treatement to a child.

Anyway, if you support the riht to choice, you have to respect this women's decision and realize that this charge is just a back door assault on the right to abortion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There are a few claims being made on this thread that state the decision was made on cosmetic grounds. However that claim appears to come from the prosecutors, and looks like an assumption on their part in the article.

Does anyone have anything actually convincing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyway, if you support the riht to choice, you have to respect this women's decision and realize that this charge is just a back door assault on the right to abortion.

She didn't ask for an abortion. If that were the case, then it would be ok. It's a degree of subtlety, but important. After all, if you crash into a car and a woman loses her baby, you get charged for manslaughter. The personhood of the unborn seemingly is tied to the intention of the mother (and she did not intend to abort), but this is a very interesting case.