Author Topic: So causing the death of babies in the womb is murder after all? (Read 787 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **on:** March 12, 2004, 09:39:01 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html

[SIZE=10]?[/SIZE]

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2004, 09:40:53 AM »

State = Utah. Doesn't mean anything to the rest of the US (Unfortunately).

But still, this woman needs to be shot for her selfishness...

gofaster · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2004, 09:45:49 AM »

Quote

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said.

Key word: probably.

I'll probably participate in ToD tonight. But if I get a phone call to partner up for a beach volleyball tournament tomorrow, I won't do ToD.

Should be interesting for the prosecution to prove intent.

narsus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2004, 09:55:15 AM »

Yup keyword = probably

Guess what, they were right.

texace · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:22:46 AM »

Ok, now I have seen everything.

Not only will we a woman be charged for murder if a baby is aborted, but now she will be charged if a baby is stillborn or miscarried? What kind of screwed up BS is this?

C-sections are complicated and leave scars. Some women don't like them, and in this case they've got a right to refuse them. "Probably" is a very loose term here. You cannot charge murder on something you didn't know was going to happen, regardless of what the doctor says. It's the mother's choice...she shouldn't be held responsible for that.

Like I said in another thread...day by day we lose our freedoms...

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:51:44 AM »

"probably" is more likely to happen than not

she killed her babies, will she do time for it? I doubt it, after all they were just a couple of "fetus" right?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:57:24 AM »

It's sort of like saying if you shoot someone in the head, they will probably die. You expect the person not to shoot someone in the head.

But she fully understood the consequences of what would happen. And now a life is taken when it shouldn't have been.

aknimitz · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2004, 11:37:57 AM »

This is a fascinating quandry, imho. I dont know if I am more amazed that she is actually being charged, or that she actually did it!

Its not a new concept to charge someone with murder for a festus that far along in pregnancy, a la Scott Peterson. But what is interesting (and already previously mentioned) is causation. I suspect it will be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubhtbeyond a reasonable doubht that the fetus would have survived with the C-Section.

I wouldnt convict her if I was a juror.

Nim

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:22:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texace
Ok, now I have seen everything.

Not only will we a woman be charged for murder if a baby is aborted,...

C-sections are complicated and leave scars.

Scott Peterson has 2 counts of murder against him, one for his wife, and one for his unborn son. An unborn child is a victim of murder in California..... yet.....abortion.....

C sections are probably the oldest form of surgery and they are relatively simple. They are known as Cesarean because legend has it Julius Cesar was delivered in that way and is fairly common in farm animal veterinary. I have seen a few as a boy on the family ranch and I think I could pull it off and save the cow. The initial surgery and actual delivery took less than 30 seconds. Sewing up the incision took a couple of minutes. The clean up was the hardest part.

Sixpence · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:32:35 PM »

Burn the witch

Thud · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:39:58 PM »

Of course there isn't any difference between a woman who is convinced she won't be able to provide an acceptable life for her child and someone who does not want the inconvenience of a scar on her belly. Sure...

Eagler · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:48:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
Of course there isn't any difference between a woman who is convinced she won't be able to provide an acceptable life for her child and someone who does not want the inconvenience of a scar on her belly. Sure...

in a huge way no - both selfish beyond words

please define "an acceptable life "

so since the mother is "convinced" she can not, will not, and won't ever be able to provide such a life, she gives no life at all ...

or maybe it is she doesn't want accept the responsibility of her actions, to hassle with a child, heck it might cramp her style, slow her down alittle, horrors she might get fat and stretch out some with those ugly lines and all -can't have that - suck jr out - QUICK!

texace · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:49:08 PM »

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.

Some people don't want C-sections. She could have been someone going for the all natural thing. Isn't there a religion that bans the use of unnatural things for childbirth?

Scatcat · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:49:52 PM »

I think she should find her self a trial lawyer and sue that *@M$ doctor for not holding her down and forceably doing that c-sec. Cause that baby would be alive and healthy today if he would have. Then she wouldn't have to suffer emotionally for the loss of the child

gofaster · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:52:15 PM »

Quote

"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.

You guys shouldn't be so quick to convict. Notice how its the prosecution that's saying the scars were her motivation, not her. Hey, Mr. DA, how about no surgery because she wanted a natural birth the way God intended? People have refused surgery for religious reasons, but funny how that motivation isn't mentioned in the article.