Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ned
Gimp, so you support a woman's right to murder for cosmetic reasons?

Of course. Any man criticising how a woman applies her mascara is just plain asking for it, if you ask me. That's Darwinism at work.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If this case is held to be murder (or manslaughter) then the police have a duty to prevent it. The logical progression is for women to be arrested and bundled into operating theatres against their will (possibly kicking and screaming). In fact, we'd have "surgical snatch squads".

Or would that only happen if they placed the unborn child in danger for bad reasons, not good ones? Should women be arrested for enduring workplace stress while pregnant, thus endangering the precious, precious foetus?

[blackice]

Murder, yes indeed, someone has to protect the unborn...

I say 100 days home probation, which is what will happen... Ever noticed that?

[chequita guevara]

****all, let's just take away their right to vote and own property and make women chattle slaves again.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
****all, let's just take away their right to vote and own property and make women chattle slaves again.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I still see no evidence that this was done for cosmetic reasons other than the DA's assertion.

It's an easy leap to make though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If this case is held to be murder (or manslaughter) then the police have a duty to prevent it. The logical progression is for women to be arrested and bundled into operating theatres against their will (possibly kicking and screaming). In fact, we'd have "surgical snatch squads".

Or would that only happen if they placed the unborn child in danger for bad reasons, not good ones? Should women be arrested for enduring workplace stress while pregnant, thus endangering the precious, precious foetus?

Good points.

[David Floyd]

For example, if you gave your friend some home brew and it wrecked his kidneys and he needed to be hooked up to another person for dialysis, then the state would be fully justified in compelling you to be that other person.

What? That's outrageous! If you intentionally poisoned him, you should be charged with that crime. But it is unreasonable to force people to use their bodies to help another person. That's slavery. I can easily imagine an 8th Amendment argument, as well.

[blackice]

people to use their bodies to help another person. That's slavery.

Good point but what if the "person" did not know the difference, or was unable to defend themselves?

[David Floyd]

Good point but what if the "person" did not know the difference, or was unable to defend themselves?

Huh? I'm not sure I see what you are saying. Is it OK to use someone in a coma? No. Is it OK to force a person to help the mentally retarded? No. Any way you cut it, forcing me to donate a part of my body - whether it's an organ, blood, or anything - is absolutely wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, unless you already voluntarily agreed to do it (and are now trying to back out), of course.

[David Floyd]

I suppose that would depend on circumstances. If I agree to donate blood, but at the last minute I freak out when I see the needle, it would be wrong to force me to do so.

Actually, it's hard for me to envision a situation in which it would NOT be OK for me to change my mind, WRT my own body.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you agree to connect yourself to another for say, 10 years and sign a contract and all that, and then after 30 days say, nope, gonna unconnect, then I would say it would NOT be ok to change your mind. By taking on the the responsibility, you have prevented others from tying to help and you've also violated your contract.

You're damn tootin' I'd toss you in jail for that... you had a duty to fulfill that term and you didn't... leading to the death of that guy (because others thought you were helping him and thus did not help themselves).

[blackice]

You donated to term and now it is a matter of life or death to another human. You will not lose your life, a simple more than likely, treated bobble. Thier death, hey we are not saying it is easy, but respect on the lowest level of life forms makes this act look horrendous.

Saved a puppy lately? Try killing one and see how the community reacts. But alas this is a mere human being in the making, whatever...

Get your priorities together for Pete's sake.

Would you jump in front of a car to push the baby and the mother away from the on coming car? Would you rush into a burning building to save them?

A mear scar for a life, to me it takes no thought, you?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

And is this not what is happening?

A c-section IS medical treatment for the child being denied by the mother.

To put matters into perspective, BC just went ahead and allowed C-sections for elective purposes because they are that safe.

So I find the argument that the surgery would have consequences for the mother that would justify her declining the medical treatment untenable.

I don't see murder one, because of no-premediation, but definitely gross negligence and child endangerment at least, and manslaughter at worst.