AndrewB Posted March 12, 2004 Hahahaha. Utah is one royally screwed up chunk of dirt. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sephiroth Posted March 12, 2004 fuck who did her! damn that bastard had to be really really drunk, desperate or ugly! woman "where's my crack?" she looks like s drug addict 0 Share this post Link to post
Silverwyvern Posted March 12, 2004 This is crazy talk... Should there even be a question on this? No doctor has a right to force you to undergo a medical procedure... blah 0 Share this post Link to post
Little Faith Posted March 12, 2004 I think it's some kind of "every sperm is sacred" thing. (even though you should probably substitute sperm with egg or foetus). For all their campaigning against sexual freedom many religious conservatives hold human fertility as something sacred. 0 Share this post Link to post
Psyonisis Posted March 12, 2004 Silverwyvern said:This is crazy talk... Should there even be a question on this? No doctor has a right to force you to undergo a medical procedure... blah So you're saying the baby should have died? 0 Share this post Link to post
Torn Posted March 12, 2004 god, she look so fucking stoned or something. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted March 12, 2004 Supplying identities of suspected criminals in news is stupid to begin with, supplying pictures dumber yet, and supplying pictures where the suspects look like, uhh I don't know, is so dumb that I don't know what either -- dumb as the pictures perhaps. 0 Share this post Link to post
m0l0t0v Posted March 12, 2004 CNN: "We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney. True, that C-section would have ruined an otherwise beautiful woman... :-/ 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted March 12, 2004 Okay, so one of the babies died because she didn't have a procedure. If this had happened 70 years ago, the baby would have died anyway. This is like charging someone who refuses cancer treatment with suicide. 0 Share this post Link to post
Silverwyvern Posted March 12, 2004 Psyonisis said:So you're saying the baby should have died? Yes. If that's what the mother chose. She didn't kill her baby, she just didn't save it either. Like Danarchy said, this wouldn't be illegal years ago... what if she had been too poor for the operation? Is it still murder then? :P All in all, her baby is dead. It wasn't the doctor's baby, or yours or mine. It was her baby. Dead or alive, it doesn't really impact our lives. 0 Share this post Link to post
Manc Posted March 12, 2004 Silverwyvern said:... All in all, her baby is dead. It wasn't the doctor's baby, or yours or mine. It was her baby. Dead or alive, it doesn't really impact our lives. That baby could have been president! ... or maybe not. I'm glad I read this article in a text-only WAP version on my phone. The comments about not doing it for cosmetic purposes led me to believe this mother was hot or something. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sephiroth Posted March 12, 2004 cosmetic... god why should it matter. she is as ugly as a dead horse. i tell you white trash red necks are complete morons 0 Share this post Link to post
Grimm Posted March 12, 2004 What a weird case. I dunno how to feel about it. :/ 0 Share this post Link to post
Silverwyvern Posted March 12, 2004 Another thing too.. just cause she isn't very attractive doesn't mean she likes scarring any more then a supermodel. It's not like less attractive people enjoy pimples, scars, bad hair days etc.. Frankly I think she prolly just didn't want to be cut open. It certainly doesn't sound wonderful. A C-section could also comprimise her ability to have more children naturally, if she chooses. 0 Share this post Link to post
Bucket Posted March 12, 2004 Then they go so far as to mention the Supreme Court ruling that "covers unborn fetuses at all stages of development" under a homocide law. And apparently this law exempts fetal death during abortion. So, using that logic, one could possibly be persecuted for killing a fetus-- unless one literally walks into a clinic saying, "I'd like to kill my fetus". Another example of mixed logic by priveleged higher-ups whose sheltered lives their mothers gracefully preserved. 0 Share this post Link to post
Grimm Posted March 12, 2004 No, it's more like higher-ups trying to protect the unborn in any way they can, even if it means having hypocritical laws. Heh, of course, these laws aren't doing much to actually PROTECT them little chilluns. 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted March 13, 2004 Nobody has the right to decide if a mother saves her baby or not. They're the ones who got pregnant, they're the ones feeding it for 9 months, and they're the ones who have to live with it. If stupid cases like this actually cause penalties, maybe I should sue my girlfriend for throwing a sperm filled tissue away. 2,000,000 charges of murder. Stupid. 0 Share this post Link to post
Grimm Posted March 13, 2004 Un-fucking believeable. An actual useful peace of information I gleaned from If These Walls Could Talk, or whatever the title was, is that the mother is only 1/3 of the people involved--the baby is just as much the father's as the mother's; being the one who gives birth does not give her priority. And the obviously the last part is the kid. Whoops, that's right, it's not a kid, it's an almost-kid. Damn sheep. 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted March 13, 2004 Grimm said:being the one who gives birth does not give her priority.As far as I'm concerned, she's first in line for what goes 0 Share this post Link to post
Rellik Posted March 13, 2004 It should either be illegal including abortion or it shouldn't be illegal in any form. People have to make up their minds already and stop just dancing around it. Just make a fucking decision, it's alive and has rights or isn't alive and has none. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 13, 2004 They ARE alive, unless you ignore all recorded definitions of the word "alive." Fetuses do have rights, and they should, but exactly what rights and during what period of time is the real issue. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted March 13, 2004 Ralphis said:As far as I'm concerned, she's first in line for what goes Yes, women should have a choice over what happens to their body. 0 Share this post Link to post
Grimm Posted March 13, 2004 What about the body inside the body? Heh, screw it. I can already tell this is going nowhere fast. Bye bye, thread. 0 Share this post Link to post
Chopkinsca Posted March 13, 2004 I hate how people place the value of life on other people... I also hate that a popular lawsuit is one that also reenforces the lies that life is important. fucking government... 0 Share this post Link to post
Cyb Posted March 13, 2004 Silverwyvern said:All in all, her baby is dead. It wasn't the doctor's baby, or yours or mine. It was her baby. Dead or alive, it doesn't really impact our lives. So are you saying that any parent has the right to kill their child at any time with no repercussions? Because this is essentially what happened. She was not chosing between her own life or some life-altering thing and the baby's life. She was essentially told "if you don't have this operation your baby will die" and she said she didn't want the operation. While I don't think charging her with murder is correct (some sort of post-first trimester abortion penalty seems more appropriate) she's sure enough a cunt for doing it. BTW using the 'if this was 70 years ago' argument is just stupid because it's not 70 years ago, it's 2004. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 13, 2004 Cyb said:She was essentially told "if you don't have this operation your baby will die" and she said she didn't want the operation.It says that she was "advised" to have the C-section. BTW using the 'if this was 70 years ago' argument is just stupid because it's not 70 years ago, it's 2004. Would she be charged with murder if she flat-out couldn't afford the operation? 0 Share this post Link to post