Wow, Just wow. That pretty much sums up your line of thinking, I guess. Make an absurd claim…(not even couched in terms of “your opinion”), and then stand back and challenge someone to prove a negative.
Okayyyyyyy… Have fun with this thread, then.
Here’s an update
Rest of article here.
Shit. I think this entitles her to a seperate Pit thread, myself.
No, it doesn’t.
It’s awful. It’s outrageous.
It’s also absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand, namely this specious and entirely political murder charge.
No, it’s not irrelevant. It establishes that this woman has a history of abusive behaviour towards her children and that she has so little control over her emotions that she would beat up a child over a pack of cigarettes.
That doesn’t justify a murder charge though. As many have said before, there are plenty of other charges that can be used to adequately punish her for being a “bad person”. Murder is not appropriate and sets an unfortunate precedent as far as body autonomy goes.
It may be relevant to a judgment of her character, but her character (including the fact that she punched a kid over a pack of smokes) is irrelevant to the murder charge. Either it is murder when you refuse surgery that could prevent a fetus from dying, or it isn’t - no matter what you did four years earlier.
Ok, first of all- M. Rowland is a bad mother, scum of the lowest sort, and a poster child for requiring a license for getting preggers- or for forced sterilization. Her smoking, drug use, child abuse and trying to sell her litter are all reprehensible.
But there’s the point- she did not refuse the caesarian becuase of the scar- she had already had two C-sections before. Those who say she “killed her babies to avoid a scar” are either: flat out wrong, lying through their teeth to push their anti-abortion agenda, or a dupe of the “right to life” wing.
She claims that “she was never informed that she needed immediate surgery”. I doubt that- but I DO think that in her low-wattage, drug-addled and crazy-as-a-loon brain she didn’t understand what the Docs were telling her. I think that becuase even I- with my degree and all- also have problems with all their weasle-wording and hemming & hawing.
Now, I wouldn’t mind having a Law where we could prosecute a woman for drinking, smoking & especially drug use while pregnant. If there was such a law, this bitch would right in there for a double maximum sentence. And, I can even see “depraved endangerment”- it’s a stretch, but you wouldn’t get the ACLU & Womans groups lining up behind her as we have now with this damn silly MURDER charge.
Here’s what I’d do- charge her with Child endangerment or something along those lines. Offer a suspended sentance if she agrees to have her tubes tied and be admitted to a mental care facility.
But Murder ??? All this will do is polarize America.
What the…are you even paying attention?
The initial reports said that doctors and nurses were the ones that reported she didn’t want to have a C-section because of scarring.
Where’s my cite? Oh yeah…here’s one, genius
Then we have Ms Rowland denying that…but of course
Even though…
AND…
But NOOOOOOO. Genius boy DrDeth says that if we believe the health care professionals who initially reported the incidents…that we are, what was it…oh yeah
That we should instead believe Ms Rowland.
I could give a shit if she had 2 or twenty previous C-sections, I’m left with a choice of who to believe…the nurse/doctor who reported what she said…or Ms. Rowland.
I guess DrDeth considers Ms. Rowland to be more credible.
Genius. Pure genius!!!
:rolleyes:
She is being charged with Child Endangerment. But you cannot tie someone’s future reproductive choices to a criminal penalty, as there is no provision in law to do so. Nor is there any way to force someone into a mental facility unless they are found to be mentally incompetant, which precludes their being found guilty and sentenced to anything.
Honestly, don’t you people even watch Law & Order? These are basic legal concepts.
Beagledave, your own quote disproves your point. The doctors and nurses never said that Melissa Rowland rejected a c-section because she didn’t want a scar, they said that she rejected a c-section because she didn’t want to be cut. There’s a damned difference between not wanting a scar and not wanting to have your body cut apart! I don’t want to be cut. Not “I don’t want a scar.” I don’t want to be cut. I don’t want a scalpel incising my skin, my abdominal muscles and my womb. I don’t want surgery. I don’t want to have my body opened up and pulled apart unnaturally.
The whole scarring thing was an inference. It was a presumption. It was a leapt-to conclusion. It was an easy way to dismiss this woman’s concerns as nothing more than vanity when in fact, she said nothing about scarring or appearance or what her body would look like after the surgery at all. I don’t want to be cut = I don’t want a scar only if you believe that the only consequence of this surgery that Melissa Rowland knew about was the scar. There’s no evidence to support that assumption whatsoever. Not a shred, even without giving Melissa Rowland’s post-arrest statements any credence whatsoever.
It was the prosecutor who first made that inference in a public statement, and the prosecutor is the one who is attempting to set a precedent by using this law for the first time in a case with a mother whose alleged crime arises directly from unwillingness to comply with medical advice. As has been mentioned in numerous comments, the easiest way to get a precedent, to get a slam-dunk conviction, is to make sure that the defendant in the case cannot be viewed with sympathy. Unfortunately, on her basic merits, Melissa Rowland is does elicit sympathy. She is poor, she is poorly educated, she has suffered mental illness from her childhood.
When the prosecutor made the statement, that was what we known about Ms. Rowland, she was the kind of woman who was easily railroaded, and she was sick. So he had to come up with something that would turn her image around. The vanity slam was the first volley. No matter that it wasn’t based on reality. Now he can back away from it somewhat because the history of child abuse and the alleged drug use in this case have become public knowledge; all of these marks against Melissa Rowland work together to make her as unsympathetic a defendant as possible, and that’s good for the prosecutor, and he knows it. She’s being convicted in the court of public opinion for being a rotten mother and a rotten person and for being stupid and making what was, in hindsight, a terrible choice.
But none of that adds up to murder. Even under this onerous Utah statute, none of that adds up to murder. But murder is the case that she’s been given, and it’s just flat out wrong.
TeaElle Thank you for finally finding a way to say what I’ve wanted to communicate, but felt I’ve been failing at.
Well, beagledave does the point I was trying to make about the DA’s motives in stating that “We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations” finally sink in? It can’t be proven, (any more than any motive can be solidly PROVEN) but the DA’s actions certainly seem to point to the “try her in the media” mentality. Even the second hand comments from the nurse at the third hospital don’t come right out and say that. The nurse quotes Ms. Rowland as saying “she didn’t want to be cut like that”.
There is no second hand statement saying Ms. Rowland mentioned any scar directly, only that she didn’t want to be cut. That, to me, is trying a person in the media, by making their motives appear so reprehensible, that no mercy should be given. You going to scoff, and ridicule every person in this thread who makes a statement that you, in your high flying emotions disagree with, or are you going to calm down and see that maybe you are still jerking your knee, and looking foolish?
I feel this woman’s actions are reprehensible, but I still don’t think murder charges are the answer. I’m not certain what would be the answer.
Child endangerment charges seem apt, and do not require the criminalization of medical decisions. Ensuring that all of Rowland’s parental rights are terminated forthwith, permanently, since she has had numerous incidents showing her inabilities to properly act as a parent also works within the boundaries of acceptable legal responses to such incidents. I’d also have no problem if a plea bargain was offered to Rowland which mandated her participation in some significant psychological care, perhaps even beginning with a short period of inpatient care, as a condition of avoiding jail.
Yes I get your point. You’re stating that “she didn’t want to be cut like that” does not necessarily equal “She didn’t want a scar”…and it’s actually a reasonable point to debate.
I searched but could not find the context for Morgan’s statement “We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations”. Was he asked at a press conference “why” Rowland did what she did? I don’t know.
Also…I have a feeling we haven’t heard all of the statements from the medical professionals (several of the hospitals have clamped down on further statements due to privacy concerns etc…). Perhaps, for example, the nurses/doctors explained to the prosecutor/police that it was pretty obvious in the manner that Ms Rowland was acting, that she was not worried about medical risks from the procedure, that she fully understood what was involved (since she already had it done previously) but still seemed to be mostly concerned about scarring. I don’t really know, to be quite honest.
What is her attorney doing by characterizing her as someone with severe mental problems?
Wow. Let’s see if you’re consistent here.
DrDeth says
I notice no reponse from you…calling him out for his tone and demeanor, his “high flying emotion”, ridiculing someone who disagrees with him.
I guess it’s ok for folks who agree with your position to offer up ridicule?
Uh huh.
Just so you’re clear on this…If DrDeth had said what you and others like TeaElle had said about other possibile motives, I wouldn’t criticize him for taking that position (although I might disagree with it). You’ll notice, of course, that I criticized NO ONE else for taking that kind of position…right?
beagledave You’ve replied to some of my posts in this thead with a “scoffing” tone. I’m human, not a robot. I can’t be perfectly consistent, can you? I didn’t know quite how to phrase what I thought of DrDeth’s post, but I didn’t feel that name calling was an appropriate response either, which is what you did. Why not make certain you’ve met the same standards of consistency yourself, before accusing another of being inconsistent?
the “scoffing” tone I used in reference to you earlier was when you claimed earlier that the DA “threw in” details about the mother’s drug abuse issues…implying that he wouldn’t have a case otherwise.
I challenged you to back it up (since you didn’t even preface it as opinion…but stated it as fact)…and your reply was to challenge me to prove a negative…that’s a bit intellectually dihonest…ergo my “scoffing” attitude.
I tried to parse that…but I don’t know. Were you being inconsistent or not?
I was responding to his ridicule/name calling (NOT his taking a different position on Ms Rowland’s motives…he was suggesting that no reasonable person could agree with Mr Morgan) . Are you actually saying that responding to ridicule/name calling with an insult, is not appropriate in the Pit?
beagledave You directly attacked a poster who had made general statements as to what he thought of a certain group of people and their perceptions/opinions, which he thought were flawed. That’s different. He didn’t use your name in his post. You insulted him directly, instead of his veiwpoint. This is what I was getting at previously.
Oh.
So making insulting remarks about groups of people is okey-dokey, as long as I don’t mention specific names.
Gotcha.
All pro choice people want to kill babies.
All gay folks are amoral sexual deviants.
All Republicans are heartless, selfish pricks.
All Christians are dumb idiots.
This is a fun game…thanks! :rolleyes:
Overreact and twist people’s words much? Now you’re just being ridiculous, and wriggling around in a contorted position trying to get attention, beagledave. I made a valid point, however much you may distort it mockingly. I stated my perception of your actions in this thread. I don’t think you are being very mature at this point, nor do I think you were being mature when you resorted to name calling instead of well phrased debate. That’s my take on your actions. shrug
Oh well, I’ve tried to outline where I was coming from and why I responded the way I did to DrDeths post.
At this point I’m as guilty as anyone of hijacking the thread about from the OP.
If you’re still bothered by my postings, sorry…guess you can use the “ignore” feature for my posts.
Yes, you can- and Judges have already done it. In fact, there are MANY things which are completely unConstitutional as a *sentence" * that can be offered in lieu of jail time. I agree- I am not sure i’d want to live in a nation where Judge could order a person to be sterlized- but if they COOSE to do so instead of the legal prison sentance, that’s OK by me. In fact, they have done this to quite a few Sex offenders.
Beagledave- like i said- she already had TWO C-sections. And, point to a Doc or nurse that QUOTES Ms.Rowland as saying she wanted to avoid SCARRING. I don’t think you can, or else i’d have already seen in the billions of gallons of ink spilled over this case.
Yes, she did say that she didn’t want to get CUT , and being leery of being cut open is entirely differnt than being worried about a scar. Still- I cheerfully admit she’s a complete loon, and likely has a room temp IQ as well. Thus, if you say her desrire to avoid the C-section 'wasn’t rational"- hell, damn me, YES! And, perhaps even selfish. But there is not a shred of evidence it had anything to do with a desire to avoid a scar. The DA started that to make sure this woman was hated & reviled- and you know what? Dudes bought into that scam- including several right here.
And, then think of the preedent. What we have here is "Doctors say "do (or don’t do) x or your baby dies- and if the baby does die- it’s MURDER.
Mother is a Christian Scientist- Dr. says “Do x, or baby dies” Mom says “doing x is against her faith”, baby dies= murder.
Mother is on drugs- Docs say “Don’t do any more drugs, or the baby dies”- Mother does drugs, baby dies= murder.
Doc’s say “don’t drink” Mom does- baby dies= 2o years in the Pen.
Do’s say “Don’t smoke”… etc etc…
Man- time to build another couple dozen prisons. :rolleyes: