"Screw the twins" - I can't have a scar

The BBQ Pit
101

Certainly not. But if you think a murder is committed, you wait to see if anyone else associated with the alleged murderer has been harmed? That doesn’t make any sense. When you find out she hasn’t been taking care of her other children, you say, “Ooh. She must have meant to kill this one?”

They say this woman is mentally ill, but apparently they thought she was lucid enough to sign a statement saying that she understood her refusal of surgery could mean her babies would die. Got news for you - if they prove she is indeed mentally ill, they can probably prove she was not competent enough to sign that paper.

102

Say WHHHHHAAAT?

The first “they” in your statement is her lawyer who has made claims about her menatl problems AFTER she was charged.

The second “they” in your statement are nurses and doctors at hospitals who encountered her weeks before her lawyers claim…

Why you are suggesting that the two "they"s are the same is beyond me. :dubious:

103

For the sake of fighting ignorance, I just want to add that vaginal births after caesarians are becoming more common. From this site:

104

From the article linked in the OP:

This very strongly implies that the woman did not use drugs. Apparently she did, but the article from the OP is incredibly misleading.

105

Drug use notwithstanding, the spokesman for the DA himself announced that part of the reason for the charges against the woman was because

so my point of contention is not moot.

from this site articulates the point some of us are trying to make. If this prosecution is successful, it opens the door to new laws, ones that regard the woman not as an individual with the rights to choose what happens to her body, but as an “incubator”, and worse, soon it will be “all women of fertile age MUST NOT do anything that could risk any baby they might possibly be carrying”. (say 9 to 50? for the fluke births) I am SO glad I had a hysterectomy now, it gives me an “out”.

106

Yes, actually it’s that rare. Prior to the 20th Century it was exceedingly rare for any hemophilliac to survive childhood, and I don’t think any managed to reproduce. So while there were female carriers, there were no reproducing males to supply the second defective X.

Only with the discovery of Factor VIII and it’s mass-production have we had male hemophilliacs survive to adulthood and be able to reproduce - only a generation or two. And during a time when tests can be done to detemrine suspetibility to hemophillia prior to birth. So only a very, very few female hemophilliacs have ever been born.

Classicial hemophillia is sex-linked. There ARE other clotting disorders, but they’re not what folks usually mean by “hemophillia”

Good lord! Transfusions haven’t been used as a “treatment” for hemophillia for at least a couple decades! No - they use injections of the missing/defective clotting factor that is causing the problem.

More like a complete hysterectomy - hormonal treatments may prevent babies, but they don’t always prevent spotting, which in someone with a clotting disorder can lead to a slow death.

107

I was in an auditorium full of people watching a presentation this afternoon and the guy running the demo stopped the whole thing for a moment to click over to ESPN to get the score. At that point (it was early) we were down. Then I sort of forgot about the thing.

Just go savor your football victories. Mary Sue Coleman probably feels bad too. A Little.

108

Yes, fair point. I think morals are more than just opinions, they reflect the majority opinion and so they have a little more strength than one person’s opinion. However, I won’t debate that issue any further, but rather, reword my post:

You can roll your eyes all you like [beagledave] but it doesn’t change the very serious implications for society from forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. I very strongly dissagree with it and I find it difficult to see how other people can agree to it.

I will repeat that I find her decision to be a bad one based on the information provided. But i believe that murder charges are completely unjustified.

Coming back to the issue of morals. Netscape 6, are you an American and if so, how do you view your country’s “rights”? Are they merely a reflection of the majority opinion in the same way that morals are, or are they somehow more concrete? If so, why?

109

What’s all this talk about morals? I had 2 c-sections to bring my children into this world. She’s clearly a seriously disturbed woman. I’m surprised this topic warrants any comment.

110

Blonde Surely you can see that this topic warrants comment because if this (seriously disturbed, morally reprehensible individual) is prosecuted with success, than it has far reaching affects that can touch you? You do know, that more and more women are giving vaginal birth, even AFTER a C-section, right? What if the right to refuse (and get a second opinion) that C-section that one single, human, falliable doctor says is needed, gets taken away, much to your detriment, and the baby’s detriment?

Do you really think it’s ok, for the government to be able to FORCE a person, (pregnant or not) to have a surgical procedure done because “it can save a life”? Don’t you see how that can be used in many other not good ways? It’s a trend that must NOT be allowed to gain momentum.

That is what all the comment is about. The differences between veiwing a person as an individual, with the right to choose what happens to their body, or veiwing a pregnant woman as an “incubator” who does not have more priority than her unborn child, who has less rights and can be forced to have procedures she doesn’t want “for the good of the unborn child”. Read all of this thread, part of the debate on this matter covers the thought that “forced organ donations” could arise from this. (Not to mention the outlawing of ALL abortions, no matter what. Diabetic? In a coma? Only 2 months pregnant, and need an abortion to have a better chance to live? Too bad, that baby has more rights to live, and we’ll risk you dying to keep it alive.")

It could go “Pregnant woman = incubator, unborn baby has more rights --> Baby is in distress, so MAKE the mother have surgery to “save a life” --> sick person needs a kidney, one of their relatives is a match but doesn’t want to go through surgery --> MAKING their relative donate said kidney to save a life” Hell, why stop at only a relative? Why not just screen everyone, to see if they are a match, and if so take what the other person needs “to save a lift”? Where is the line drawn?

As it stands, the way the Constitution is written/enacted gives a person the right to choose whether or not they want to have a medical procedure done. People have the right to bleed to death from a car wreck rather than have a medical procedure. This is the exact opposite of what this prosecution (if the DA wins) will bring about, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Do you see what the uproar is about now?

111

Er, yeah, I have always understood the concept, but thanks for the elaboration there.

VBAC is common, I understand that. But why on earth would anyone dispute or ignore a doctor’s advice that c-section was necessary? You’re taking this a few steps too far, my friend. We’re just talking about a deranged woman who made the wrong choice. I seriously doubt this single tragic death will have any impact other than to make women/doctors more aware that in some cases, c-sections are absolutely necessary.

112

Blonde Read this entire thread, including the links in it. This is the second case touching on this matter. They are PROSECUTING THIS STUIPID WOMAN WHO MADE A WRONG DECISION FOR MUDER! Thereby taking away a woman’s right to refuse to have a C-section out of the fear that if the baby(s) die, she will be prosecuted for murder. If that part is successful, than it dominoes from there.

Already, a Pennsylvania hospital was granted guardianship of an UNBORN child, and a court order saying that if the “carrier” of the child came back to the hospital, than she would be MADE to have a C-section, and would have no legal right to refuse! Well, that woman “escaped” to another hospital, and gave birth to an 11 pound 9 oz baby (not 13 pounds as the other hospital said) vaginally, with no complications. There is currently a lawsuit over this hospital’s action, to prevent it from becoming a precedent. This woman’s murder charge is a branch close to the this case’s “tree trunk” if you will. It’s linked in this thread, read it and then see why people are up in arms over this.

113

I don’t have any problem with forcing a woman to have a c-section if it would save the life of the child.

114

Blonde The doctors at the hospital in Pennsylvania thought the woman was “gravely endangering” her baby, because she’d had large babies before, this one was large, and she’d had troubles in child birth. Yet, this woman gave VAGINAL birth, with NO complications! It’s an inexact science, therefore, FORCING a person to have surgery is not only against the constitution, but not necessarily a “cure all” solution either. That’s all I have to say on this matter here in this thread. Go to this thread for more of my thoughts on your words in this thread.

115

Blonde and beagledave, I have a serious question to ask you and I would value an honest reply. The three of us can agree that saving the life of another human being is worth putting ourselves into a little jeopardy. I truly believe that if we had been in the same circumstances, we would not have hesitated to have that C-section even if there were more than a little risk involved.

Have either of you donated a kidney? Are either of you participants in a bone marrow registration program?

If the answer is no to either or both of these questions, why are you not acting to save a life? Any doctor will tell you that there is a waiting list of lives to be saved.

(And if the answer is no, I still do not mean that as personal criticism of you. I just hoped you might see the irony of setting standards for others that we do not meet ourselves.) If the answer is yes, I admire your courage.

116

What about forcing someone to donate a kidney?

117

This is an intriguing radio interview with the mother who gave birth in Utah:

http://radio.ksl.com/index.php?sid=80683&nid=19

I don’t think this reason applies in this particular case, but there has been a lot of bad press in recent years indicating that C-sections are too often performed unnecessarily and for the convenience of the doctor. (I do not intend for that to be taken as a generalization about OB’s.

Doctors can give you medical advice. You must accept responsibility for making informed medical decisions relating to your body.

Only the worst doctors will claim that they always know what is best for all concerned. One doctor told me that the pain in my side was caused by nerves. Another doctor discovered that instead, I had what was then called Stein-Leventhal Syndrome. Another attack of “nerves” produced about 200 small gallstones. The baby that was due thirty years ago never existed at all – an understandable misdiagnosis. The “harmless nothing” under my eye (according to my former dermatologist) fell under the scrutiny (just by accident) of a dermatologist from another city. It was a carcinoma.

I have great respect for the medical profession and adore my physicians. But I have chosen them carefully and they also listen to me.

118

Yes I am an American. Ideally I feel rights should be a reflection of the desiers of the majority. I feel this because one of my strongest political beliefs is the goverment should be a servent of the governed. I also believe some rights need alot more consideration before tampering with them. The Bill of Rights on our Constitution is the best example. This has put me in the position of not liking guns all that much but being progun because of the Second Amendment. Some rights I consider more important then my own life.

This is one of those things I think about alot. Usually When I’m driving.

119

That seems to be a very sensible and considered outlook.

120

Look, folks, over in GD, we’ve got people arguing that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, the English settled North America before the Spanish and American Indians don’t count as settling it, and that the Revelation of St. John in the Bible should be taken as literally predicting Armageddon within the near future, and this is in the most intellectually rigorous forum of a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. In light of that, is it so difficult to accept that this woman could also willfully misinform herself to the point where it results in the death of her unborn child? Yes, it’s tragic. Yes, it’s stupid. Tragedy and stupidity are all too common, I’m afraid.

CJ