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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Last edited by Yoepus on Mar-13-2004 at 00:11

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

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?