Overturn Roe v. Wade?

[kellycummings]

Re: Re: Re: Freedom of choice

Kelly,

It does sound crazy, and I often find myself thinking about it in my studies. Religion was a big factor was when this country was founded, but if it was, why do we have the laws we have now? It is confusing, and it will be a debateable subject for years to come.

What I say is of my own opinion. I have always believed that if someone wants to do something, such as abortions, let them. They can only answer to themselves for what they did.

Well, in my defense, it was late and I was tired when I wrote that.
I personally think that religion played a part in our founding but was held out of our constitution as much as possible.

 

[Pure]

On religion: sounds right, kc., for the federal government; except the states were allowed certain support of religious establishments (little known fact).

the other question raised by dd, of course is whether the constitution and bill of rights pretty much said it all-- all later amendments and laws being unnecessary or frivolous. Favoring DD: on the abortion issue, some argue that the 'liberty' guarantee would allow it, by implication.

OTOH, the concept of "privacy" --usually cited as of prime importance in pro choice arguments--is NOT talked about expressly in the const. and b.r.; that concept, *in the 20th century* was judicially interpreted as underlying the framework of the constitution, or in its 'penumbra.'

PS: In contrast to the 'Bible said it all' and 'original Constitution said it all' folks, I believe either: (as rumple says) Pogo said it all ; if not, (as in 'you've got mail') the Godfather did.

 

[oo0_boo_0oo]

wow, that lot took some reading!

I will throw in my 2pence worth.

I am all for freedom of choice. If a woman decides that abortion is for her then its her choice, no-one elses. If she can live with that decision then its fine by me.

Personally having 3 children myself I'm not sure its something I could do. That doesn't mean that its wrong for others to do it.

I would hate to see a rise in back street butchers, if abortion were made illegal, like it or not that is what would happen.

The dicussion did deviate slightly to one of capital punishment. I live in a country where the death penalty has been abolished. I am happy with that. My sister was murdered in 1997, her killer wasn't put to death, nor would I want him to be. I want him to live his life, I hope he grows incredibly old. Every day he has to live with what he did, death would be the cowards way out for him. He's tried to take his own life many times... he's yet to succeed and I sincerely hope he doesn't.

 

[Somme]

"All men are created equal."

This encludes every American citizen. Yes, women are inculded in that. Notice I said, "citizen."

How long does it take, though, until somme are more equal than others?

 

[PDumbledore]

How long does it take, though, until somme are more equal than others?

Some now believe that they are above others, and we should do what they say.

I was reading a news article on line the other day about someone out in Washington state, or California, who was preganant with twins. She was having problems and the doctors advised here to have a c-section to save the babies. She declined saying that she would rather have the babies die before she butchered her body. She is now being brought up on charges becasue one of the twins died.

If the charges do hold, where does this leave the issue of adortion, the law, and the rights of the accused?

 

[Pure]

[Charge from death of fetus]

Question: If there were no mental illness, what charge, *if any*, would be appropriate?

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin has denied the charge, saying she already had scars from earlier C-sections.

Her attorney, meanwhile, said she had a long history of mental illness.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged Thursday of showing ``depraved indifference to human life,'' ignoring medical advice to deliver her twins by C-section because she didn't want to be scarred. One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather ``lose one of the babies than be cut like that.''

Rowland told Salt Lake City radio station KSL from jail that ``I already have a pretty nasty scar, it doesn't matter at all now,'' The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Her attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told the Tribune ``it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it.''

The documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, the twin girl survived but the boy died.

Shortly afterward, Rowland was jailed on a child endangerment charge involving the surviving twin, who has been adopted by a family Rowland knows.

Rowland told the radio station she has two other children who live with their grandparents in Virginia. Sikora said Rowland moved to Utah with a boyfriend and is either divorced or estranged from her husband. She lives in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, had said earlier that Rowland was married.

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

``It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made,'' she said.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

 

[PDumbledore]

Pure,

What charges would be appropiate? Even if she was mentally stable, I don't see how she could be brought up on child endangerment charges, or an other charge at that for a choice she made about her unborn children.

 

[kellycummings]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see this as an abortion issue. There were very late term and the mother made no attempt at abortion, she just didn't want a csection and was willing to let the babies die for her own vanity. From the sounds of it she's a little unstable anyway and it's possible the charges won't hold.
I dunno, just my opinion but I don't see an abortion issue that would hold water in a court.

 

[oo0_boo_0oo]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see this as an abortion issue.

No nor me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see this as an abortion issue. There were very late term and the mother made no attempt at abortion, she just didn't want a csection and was willing to let the babies die for her own vanity. From the sounds of it she's a little unstable anyway and it's possible the charges won't hold.
I dunno, just my opinion but I don't see an abortion issue that would hold water in a court.

It can be tied to the abortion issue if you buy the pro-choice line that unborn children are children and thus have the same rights and protections under the law as born children. If a mother, who refuses to have a medical proceedure done to save the life of her unborn child can be held liable to some societal punishment in the death of that unborn child, then you can establish the precedent that a fetus in the womb has rights, independant of and more important than the mother's right to decide what she wishes to do or have done to her own body.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

It can be tied to the abortion issue if you buy the pro-choice line that unborn children are children and thus have the same rights and protections under the law as born children. If a mother, who refuses to have a medical proceedure done to save the life of her unborn child can be held liable to some societal punishment in the death of that unborn child, then you can establish the precedent that a fetus in the womb has rights, independant of and more important than the mother's right to decide what she wishes to do or have done to her own body.

-Colly

I see your point with that but, to me, this case seems special because of the mothers reasons, if they are indeed true. You're right about how it could set a precedent. I think I'm just looking at it from the point of view that she did it out of vanity and that ticks me off. That might not even be true so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Pure]

Yes, the mother's reasons are an issue, under Roe v. Wade thinking. The mother's reasons, *in the first trimester* are NOT subject to anyone's second guess or assessment. In the last trimester other entities alleged interests are said to be involved: i.e., her reason has to be more along the line of grave danger to health. In that case, the desire for 'no scar' would not measure up. (But in this case, if the woman was irrationally convinced there would be a scar a foot long, that is a little different, but still, not compelling in objective terms.).

However, an extreme 'pro choice' position would be that until the fetus emerges from the mother's body and takes a first breath, she is still in complete charge; she may stop the 'carrying' or even 'birthing' process at any time for reasons *she* decides are valid.

So the fetus' status as 'bearer of rights' (=person) is connected to legal responsibility NOT to harm. And it's a slippery slope from the case in question to, judicially forcing a woman NOT to smoke for the time of her pregancy.

----
Kelly said,

I see your point with that but, to me, this case seems special because of the mothers reasons, if they are indeed true. You're right about how it could set a precedent. I think I'm just looking at it from the point of view that she did it out of vanity and that ticks me off. That might not even be true so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I see your point with that but, to me, this case seems special because of the mothers reasons, if they are indeed true. You're right about how it could set a precedent. I think I'm just looking at it from the point of view that she did it out of vanity and that ticks me off. That might not even be true so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

The article I read leaves much to be desired where the mother's reasons are concerned. The larger issue of prosecuting her for her decision is, to me, absurd. She has mental problems and was informed that her C-section would include a vertical incision from her breast bone to her pubic bone. Her statement about the scar stemmed more out of fear of the procedure itself than it did about vanity. Hell, I had wisdom teeth removed six months ago and had to sign a waiver that said I was aware that I could die from the procedure. Not what you want on your mind as they lower the gas mask onto your face.

Anyone who's seen her picture can see that vanity is not a high priority of hers. Cesarean births are dangerous and terrifying and regardless of why she made her decision, the bottom line is that a baby died and prosecutors want someone held responsible. The woman already has a 7 and 9 year old living with other family (ies) and admittedly does not have the wherewithal to be raising children. Should she have gotten pregnant then? Not our place to say or speculate, but because of her decision, one of the children died and most think she should pay.

I was vehemently opposed to c-sections when I had my daughter, but as they pushed pitocin through my IV and my body contracted she was dying. Internal monitors explained that my body's reaction to the drug (insanely strong contractions that cut off her blood/oxygen supply) was killing her. I was killing her. Did I have the option to make it otherwise? No. If given the option to birth her naturally or by way of surgery, I definitely would have chosen the former rather than the latter. I wanted her out at all costs, safe and alive. Had I chosen to continue on with the medical team's methods of induction she likely would have perished in the process. I do not suffer mental illness, though, and instructed them to take her by whatever means necessary. Was I frightened about having major surgery performed? Absolutely. Am I happy about my scar? Not particularly, but every time I see her smile I know it was worth it. But again, I have enough mental facilities to be able to weigh the risks of having surgery or not having it. Had I been faced with the potential that my own life hung in the balance, I daresay it would have been a very dark moment in my life and a decision not made lightly.

Who are we to judge the things she may have said during labor? The report I read, that included the quote about the scar, was given by a nurse that was assisting her. Not sure how many have been in a labor and delivery room during childbirth, but I can guarantee you things are said by women that would make your head spin. Threats, nasty epithets, etc... And for anyone to quote a mentally troubled woman during one of the most painful and frightening times in her life is just ridiculous. And now that she's being prosecuted for saying/thinking those things during a moment of extreme duress, is just disgraceful.

I've a hard time believing that any woman would go through nine months of pregnancy (stretch marks, back pain, almost a year of semi-disfigurement, and overall discomfort) and be more worried about a scar than the wellfare of the children/child she'd carried inside her for so long. It's not about the scar folks.

~lucky

 

[kellycummings]

The article I read leaves much to be desired where the mother's reasons are concerned. The larger issue of prosecuting her for her decision is, to me, absurd. She has mental problems and was informed that her C-section would include a vertical incision from her breast bone to her pubic bone. Her statement about the scar stemmed more out of fear of the procedure itself than it did about vanity. Hell, I had wisdom teeth removed six months ago and had to sign a waiver that said I was aware that I could die from the procedure. Not what you want on your mind as they lower the gas mask onto your face.

Anyone who's seen her picture can see that vanity is not a high priority of hers. Cesarean births are dangerous and terrifying and regardless of why she made her decision, the bottom line is that a baby died and prosecutors want someone held responsible. The woman already has a 7 and 9 year old living with other family (ies) and admittedly does not have the wherewithal to be raising children. Should she have gotten pregnant then? Not our place to say or speculate, but because of her decision, one of the children died and most think she should pay.

I was vehemently opposed to c-sections when I had my daughter, but as they pushed pitocin through my IV and my body contracted she was dying. Internal monitors explained that my body's reaction to the drug (insanely strong contractions that cut off her blood/oxygen supply) was killing her. I was killing her. Did I have the option to make it otherwise? No. If given the option to birth her naturally or by way of surgery, I definitely would have chosen the former rather than the latter. I wanted her out at all costs, safe and alive. Had I chosen to continue on with the medical team's methods of induction she likely would have perished in the process. I do not suffer mental illness, though, and instructed them to take her by whatever means necessary. Was I frightened about having major surgery performed? Absolutely. Am I happy about my scar? Not particularly, but every time I see her smile I know it was worth it. But again, I have enough mental facilities to be able to weigh the risks of having surgery or not having it. Had I been faced with the potential that my own life hung in the balance, I daresay it would have been a very dark moment in my life and a decision not made lightly.

Who are we to judge the things she may have said during labor? The report I read, that included the quote about the scar, was given by a nurse that was assisting her. Not sure how many have been in a labor and delivery room during childbirth, but I can guarantee you things are said by women that would make your head spin. Threats, nasty epithets, etc... And for anyone to quote a mentally troubled woman during one of the most painful and frightening times in her life is just ridiculous. And now that she's being prosecuted for saying/thinking those things during a moment of extreme duress, is just disgraceful.

I've a hard time believing that any woman would go through nine months of pregnancy (stretch marks, back pain, almost a year of semi-disfigurement, and overall discomfort) and be more worried about a scar than the wellfare of the children/child she'd carried inside her for so long. It's not about the scar folks.

~lucky

I gotta believe she has mental problems. My problem is that she was told about all this between christmas and january 9th the reports said. It said she was told several times and had plenty of time to decide so it wasn't a decision made during labor. What I'm wondering is, if she does have mental problems, why didn't somebody step in?
The whole thing just pisses me off. Maybe she can't be faulted because of a condition or something. Fine. Somebody is at fault though because they knew this would happen.
I had a c-section with my first and it didn't bother me. I know people get freaked about going under and I can totally understand that. I know that surgery in general can cause peole to get upset and I can understand that, especially if they are lacking the mental ability to truly understand their decision.
I guess the whole thing just upsets me. I'm seeing it as a needless death.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I gotta believe she has mental problems. My problem is that she was told about all this between christmas and january 9th the reports said. It said she was told several times and had plenty of time to decide so it wasn't a decision made during labor. What I'm wondering is, if she does have mental problems, why didn't somebody step in?
The whole thing just pisses me off. Maybe she can't be faulted because of a condition or something. Fine. Somebody is at fault though because they knew this would happen.
I had a c-section with my first and it didn't bother me. I know people get freaked about going under and I can totally understand that. I know that surgery in general can cause peole to get upset and I can understand that, especially if they are lacking the mental ability to truly understand their decision.
I guess the whole thing just upsets me. I'm seeing it as a needless death.

That's the funny thing about life. Needless death happens all the time. Spain, New York, your hometown and mine. Everywhere you turn there is needless death. Natural disasters, famine, disease...does there always have to be someone to blame? Not that I think folks should get away with such things if they are malicious, but I think we're trying to control and punish where too many unknowns are present.

The best thing about your thinking is that someone should have maybe stepped in and helped counsel her on the reality of her situation. But if she is a productive and active member in society, i.e. not in the State's care or certifiably crazy...her right to choice is in tact and should not be swayed by outside forces if it goes against the beliefs and ideals that she can handle and will have to live with.

~lucky (I'm sad too, but not looking for anyone to blame)

 

[shereads]

Having read Amicus' post to this thread, I take it all back. His logic is irrefutable. I now believe that a fertilized human egg is a baby, and that use of the morning-after pill is equivalent to murder.

You pro-choice anti-life liberals are on your own. Burn, heretics.

 

[shereads]

Heehee.

This is too easy. It seems wrong to take advantage.

I'm going to start a secret thread (entirely in code!) for those of us who know we're right, so we can make sense to each other.

If you're smart enough, you'll be able to decode it. See you there!

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Heehee.

This is too easy. It seems wrong to take advantage.

I'm going to start a secret thread (entirely in code!) for those of us who know we're right, so we can make sense to each other.

If you're smart enough, you'll be able to decode it. See you there!

I'll bring the wine and cheese.

~lucky

 

[shereads]

deleted because I can

 

[Somme]

deleted because I can

Spoilsport................but welcome back.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Having read Amicus' post to this thread, I take it all back. His logic is irrefutable. I now believe that a fertilized human egg is a baby, and that use of the morning-after pill is equivalent to murder.

You pro-choice anti-life liberals are on your own. Burn, heretics.

I already have my condo reserved on the lake of fire. Everyone's invited, just remeber to bring your asbestos bikini's and skis.

-Colly, confirmed heritic