TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ummm This is Something of Dilemma
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

So do you charge this bitch with murder or does she reserve the right to refuse medical advice?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/...d.ap/index.html

God she's ugly as shit.

Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So do you charge this bitch with murder or does she reserve the right to refuse medical advice? http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/...d.ap/index.html God she's ugly as shit.

Don't know about murder 1, maybe murder 2 or 3, likely a manslaughter would be more appropriate.

And yes, she's one serious fugly. Newest candidate for Extreme Makeover.

Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Don't know about murder 1, maybe murder 2 or 3, likely a manslaughter would be more appropriate. And yes, she's one serious fugly. Newest candidate for Extreme Makeover.

See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort.

Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort.

Child abuse/neglect then?

I don't know law specifics, and I certainly do not know the specifics of this case, but since she was specifically told that there was a definite risk to the childs' lives, she has to get slapped with something?

Hmmm, I can almost see some parallels to the abortion argument here. Was this your intent to open up that can of worms, you sly dog you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, I can almost see some parallels to the abortion argument here. Was this your intent to open up that can of worms, you sly dog you?

Waaaaa? Sneak in my pro-abortion views under the guise of a somewhat related individual rights issue? Never!

No really, I wish I were that sneaky ...

don't you have "causing of others death"? that law seems to perhaps fit into this situation... but i donno if it's rigth to do this now, should have forced her before instead in that case...

anyway she was the ugliest girl i have seen for a looong time!

Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort.

Wouldn't this be quite similar to the "spiritual healing" cases? I thought the courts had ruled that those parents who allowed their children to die by refusing medical attention were guilty of manslaughter. This case would be even more cut-and-dry since it has nothing to do with religion, it's just a ho who didn't want to look uglier than she already was - I'm sure the courts would have no problem calling it manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder.

We're not exactly talking about a fetus here - this was a live child ready to come out of the womb. I don't think there's much room in this case for philosophy - she killed that kid in order to look slightly less uglier than Sin itself, no bones about it.

Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction.

But that defense only goes so far. When you have a duty to perform an act, your inaction is no different from a case where you did something that caused harm.

For example, in the US, if you witness a car accident and see someone bleeding to death on the front seat, it is your right to keep on walking. No liability.

But once you become involved, i.e. trying to open the car door to save the person, you then have the duty to remain there and see that matter through. You have become linked to the matter at hand, and your inaction can be just as bad as an action. Both cause harm, and when you have a duty to a person, both make you liable.

In this case, I think it would be ludicrous to argue that the mother did not have a duty to the child. Therefore, inaction in itself can be the cause for criminal liability.

p.s. That woman should be charged for ugliness as well. Wow...

But really, guys, you gotta understand her. A caesarian section would ruin her perfect beautiful body!

If I'm not mistaken, I believe once a child is deamed "viable" outside of the woman, a person can be charged for murder by directly cuasing its death. I really have mixed emotions about this one though. I believe it is the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment, but I'm not so sure when it pertains to the life of another. I do believe that medicine, being a technology, is not an inalienable right nor should it be forced on anyone. However, it is difficult for me to justify an infants death because a woman refused a procedure that has been around for at least 500 documented years, maybe more.

And guys, she is my mom, and to me she'll always be beautiful.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok For example, in the US, if you witness a car accident and see someone bleeding to death on the front seat, it is your right to keep on walking. No liabilty

your rihgt, on the other hand the woman and the unborn twins were under the supervision and recomendation of a physician who has his legal obligation to render assistance. Also the "Good Sumaritan laws" have protections that excludes liability to good sumaritans that make mistakes rendering assistance.

as an aside....I would so hit that in the dirtiest way imaginable

By the way, how the frick did she get pregnant in the first place?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo By the way, how the frick did she get pregnant in the first place?

LOOOOL i need to sleep, but omg i laughted to that one... and yes that is a mysterieum!

I feel sorry for the twin that didn't die.. I mean if I got those genes (stupid AND ugly), I sure as hell wouldn't want to be born.
I think she did humanity a service, we should be charging her for not having an abortion.

Until we forcibly extract organs from matching donors because the recipient "needs them to live," charging this "woman" with murder is downright ludicrous.

That's gotta suck. That poor womans F'ed-up mug is all over the news. The worst 15 minutes of fame ever.

I can't see her being prosecuted.

However, her other child should be taken away immediately.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Until we forcibly extract organs from matching donors because the recipient "needs them to live," charging this "woman" with murder is downright ludicrous.

So you don't think that the burden of responsibility to one's own child should be greater than the burden of responsibility to a complete stranger?

I thought that parents had a duty to keep their children safe. I see your point and I obviously wouldn't expect her to be charged for not undergoing an operation to save a homeless bum or her boss from work, but when it's her own child and the operation would not affect her in any meaningful way, I really have to swing the other way. I've always been pro-choice but I think something like this is crossing the line.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Until we forcibly extract organs from matching donors because the recipient "needs them to live," charging this "woman" with murder is downright ludicrous.

I would argue that a lung, heart or liver would have a tough time surviving out of the confines of the human body unaided. This child would have been able to sustain itself (much like thier twin did). To me that's where the seperation is, this child would be alive, on its own if not for the lack of intervention. Although I already shared my views on this.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So you don't think that the burden of responsibility to one's own child should be greater than the burden of responsibility to a complete stranger? I thought that parents had a duty to keep their children safe. I see your point and I obviously wouldn't expect her to be charged for not undergoing an operation to save a homeless bum or her boss from work, but when it's her own child and the operation would not affect her in any meaningful way, I really have to swing the other way. I've always been pro-choice but I think something like this is crossing the line.

It seems to me that once you obligate a parent to undergo a medical procedure which causes them harm (however trivial) in order to protect their children, you open the floodgates:

What social relationships should bear what obligations? Would you have to do the same for your parent? Sibling? Grandchild?

How serious of a medical procedure is it reasonable to require you to do? How is the seriousness of the procedure measured?

How dire does the threat to the health of the other person have to be to require action? How do you measure the severity of the situation?

I don't see how these questions can be answered objectively. Although I agree that there is a certain duty which parents have towards their children (whether or not this applies to unborn children is a related issue), I don't think it's reasonable to extend that duty to the point where parents are required to undergo physical harm in order to protect their children. Although it is the ethical thing for them to do, I don't think it is within the reasonable power of a "free" society to force them to take the ethical action in such a case.

Arbiter, I'm not much of an expert on obstetrics, but wouldn't she have done herself more harm in the end by refusing the operation?

I don't think the slippery slope you're talking about is an issue as long as it's made clear that the ruling is specific to the parental responsibility for a child, and the commonness of the operation. It was her choice to have the kid, she could have gotten an abortion long before that time. If the people in question were anyone but a mother and her child, or if it was a rare or potentially dangerous operation, then that would be a touchier issue. But I think the safety and mundaneness of the operation is what makes her refusal to undergo it so cruel, and as long as that specificity is made abundantly clear in any ruling, we need not worry about the slippery slope.

I also wouldn't call the child unborn - wouldn't this be called "stillborn?" There is a distinct difference.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Arbiter, I'm not much of an expert on obstetrics, but wouldn't she have done herself more harm in the end by refusing the operation? I don't think the slippery slope you're talking about is an issue as long as it's made clear that the ruling is specific to the parental responsibility for a child, and the commonness of the operation. It was her choice to have the kid, she could have gotten an abortion long before that time. If the people in question were anyone but a mother and her child, or if it was a rare or potentially dangerous operation, then that would be a touchier issue. But I think the safety and mundaneness of the operation is what makes her refusal to undergo it so cruel, and as long as that specificity is made abundantly clear in any ruling, we need not worry about the slippery slope. I also wouldn't call the child unborn - wouldn't this be called "stillborn?" There is a distinct difference.

Well, "stillborn" means dead at birth, so it would never have been a living child if we define "child" to require having been born.

It's hard to say whether or not she would have done herself more harm by refusing the operation - although apparently she was downright horrified by the prospect of a C-section (for whatever reason), so there is a possibility of psychological side-effects.

All that aside, what you say does make a lot of sense - although I think such a law would have to be framed and placed into action in concrete terms before anyone could be charged under it. The statute this woman is being charged under is too broad, in my opinion, and I don't think murder is the right charge - some form of manslaughter or child neglect seems to be what would be called for.

Ultimately, what I'd like to see is a requirement that, at some stage of pregnancy, a woman has to make the choice to either abort or sign a contract which specifically outlines her rights and responsibilities should she choose to continue with the pregnancy. It concerns me when women in the late stages of pregnancy are suddenly making radical decisions to do one thing or another based purely on emotion, and then after the fact people start asking questions about whether it was acceptable or not. If we're going to consider these obligations to be the law, they need to be laid out in no uncertain terms.

Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort.

Depraved indifference is murder. With that said from what I understand when the doctors wre telling her this stuff, apparently she wasn't quite right in the head, and that may have been a factor, but I cant really say either way until I know more.

And just out of curiosity, how much of a fight are the pro-aboriton groups putting up?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well, "stillborn" means dead at birth, so it would never have been a living child if we define "child" to require having been born. It's hard to say whether or not she would have done herself more harm by refusing the operation - although apparently she was downright horrified by the prospect of a C-section (for whatever reason), so there is a possibility of psychological side-effects. All that aside, what you say does make a lot of sense - although I think such a law would have to be framed and placed into action in concrete terms before anyone could be charged under it. The statute this woman is being charged under is too broad, in my opinion, and I don't think murder is the right charge - some form of manslaughter or child neglect seems to be what would be called for. Ultimately, what I'd like to see is a requirement that, at some stage of pregnancy, a woman has to make the choice to either abort or sign a contract which specifically outlines her rights and responsibilities should she choose to continue with the pregnancy. It concerns me when women in the late stages of pregnancy are suddenly making radical decisions to do one thing or another based purely on emotion, and then after the fact people start asking questions about whether it was acceptable or not. If we're going to consider these obligations to be the law, they need to be laid out in no uncertain terms.

I agree completely. Murder is probably not the right category defined on those terms, although manslaughter might be, and I believe it has indeed been used for similar cases in the past.

And I guess your final point is what I'm talking about - people need to be prepared to accept the consequences of her actions, a pregnant woman can't decide to do an "abortion" 5 minutes before birth. We may not call it a living child if it hasn't been born yet, but it certainly was developed enough to suffer a hell of a lot during the miscarriage. I think you'd have a hard time making a pregnant woman sign a contract, but a little bit of legislation on this issue wouldn't hurt (fuck all of you who claim it's infringing on our "freedom" - nobody deserves the freedom to be a depraved parasite of society).

Of course, sounds like this woman had some psychological problems and would probably get off with a defense of insanity and then be committed to a mental asylum. Which is exactly where this woman should be. That and also on one of these TV makeover shows.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.