I know we all debate the abortion issue..

[mf_dolphin]

Brettjrob why does everyone who disagrees with your point of view become an extremist?

"In conclusion, this is absolutely outrageous, and only the most extreme conservative could possibly agree that this woman deserves to be tried for MURDER

For one who professes to be so tolerant of others behavior, you express no tolerance for people who disagree with you! IMO this was an intentional act of negligence that resulted in the death of another.

[southerngale]

The murder charges being filed against this woman are ludicrous... I can barely find words for the stupidity here. Anyone with half a brain would say that abortion, which is perfectly legal, is more "immoral" than not having a C-section... in both instances the fetus is not born, but in the case of abortion the sole reason to do it is to exterminate, not to avoid other complications.

The woman's body is hers alone, and she has every right to make decisions on what procedures it undergoes. The precedent being set here is extremely dangerous. There are very likely individuals who could be put in the same situation and have legitimate concerns over the surgery and not want it performed. Remember, the fact that it was merely cosmetics that influenced her decision may be "immoral," but it has NO legal bearing whatsoever. If you want to see this woman put behind bars, you are essentially advocating going down a road that leads to government picking and choosing what does and doesn't happen to your body.

In conclusion, this is absolutely outrageous, and only the most extreme conservative could possibly agree that this woman deserves to be tried for MURDER.

Why don't you call the fetus what it is, a baby! The baby could have lived outside of the mother so you don't even have that argument that people try and use for abortion. She can do whatever she wants to her body, but she had no right not letting that baby live. If she didn't want the baby, then fine, give him to a family waiting to adopt. But no, then she'd have the inconvenience of a scar on her lower tummy. Give me a break...she should be punished, plain and simple.

And why do you have to bring politics into this by saying "only an extreme conservative"? There are liberals who believe letting a baby die through negligence is murder.

All you are doing is trying to convince us of the immorality of the act, which has no bearing on the legal consequences. My post was only refuting the idea that she should be held legally responsible, not defending the act as morally acceptable. The nation's laws should not be (and largely are not) based on traditional values, and more importantly, they MUST be concrete and clear-cut. I'm sure you would agree that someone who had serious medical concerns over the C-section should NOT be punished for the same "negligence," but when it comes to legal matters, you can't be vague and say, "well, if there's a really GOOD reason not to do it then fine, but if it's a stupid thing like cosmetics they're worried about then the same action is murder!" That doesn't work, and our nation would be in chaos as we speak if the laws were like that.

So let me restate this... I agree that worrying about the appearance of one's body is a very poor reason to forefit the potential life of an unborn child. But at the same time, this is one of those instances where the legal system really shouldn't be able to touch her because of the circumstances... to ensure the baby's birth would have required her to undergo a procedure that can be risky and unpleasant, and this is true regardless of whether or not those were HER reasons for refusing the procedure.

When it comes down to it you are simply so outraged at her actions... because they go against everything you believe and practice... that you are insisting she be punished. You seem to forget, though, that your moral standards cannot and should not be legally forced upon the rest of the country.

Don't tell me how I feel. I will tell you if I choose to.

Who is the "us" here? I think you're the only one who is argueing that it's not murder and she shouldn't be punished. Let me be clear here so you will understand. Both morally and legally, she killed that baby by her negligance. How is it not negligence? She was told that she needed to have a c-section or the baby would die. She didn't have the c-section because she didn't want a scar so the baby died.

[Anonymous]

Let me be clear here so you will understand. Both morally and legally, she killed that baby by her negligance. How is it not negligence? She was told that she needed to have a c-section or the baby would die. She didn't have the c-section because she didn't want a scar so the baby died.

You just missed and/or ignored the point of everything I described with respect to the legal implications of allowing the justice system to punish this woman for her actions. It isn't just about this case alone -- in which she refused the C-section for a reason than was dumb (in our opinion) -- but the precedent that would be set by legally forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. It would be a terrible mess that none of us want the country to get into. There are cases where "negligence" is an appropriate charge, such as allowing a child to starve, because preventing the starvation would only have required the parent to fulfill their normal everyday duties. But in this case it required a risky medical procedure with anesthesia; the two are not comparable.

Disagree with her decision as strongly as you want, but to expect the legal system to enforce you morals by requiring medical procedures at will is quite a bad idea IMO.

[mf_dolphin]

Brettjrob, you seem to want to ignore the fact that this is covered by Utah state law. They didn't force her to have the surgery but they are prosecuting her for her actions. This is no different that allowing someone legally to drink but at the same time prosecuting them if they drive and kill someone.

[Guest]

Point Blank! There was a baby inside of her and the baby died because of her. Murder!

No if's and's or but's about it! Thats how i see it!

Let this one slide and before you know it everyone else will start using the same excuse which doesnt cut it with me!

[Josephine96]

Now I'm almost sorry I even posted this because it looks like the discussion got pretty heated

[mf_dolphin]

There's nothing wrong with a heated debate John.

[Josephine96]

True.. there isn't.. lol

[southerngale]

brettjrob...come on! You act like the whole world should go by what YOU think is right.

I don't expect the legal system to enforce my morals and that's pretty ridiculous of you to make a statement like that. The baby died due to her negligence and she should be punished. That's it. We're not talking about another case right now, we're talking about this one.

Btw, you call a c-section a risky medical procedure but you fail to mention that it's a very low risk procedure.

[GalvestonDuck]

We've talked about the moral and legal aspects. How about the medical aspects?

The British Medical Journal reported that a second twin was at a higher risk of death due to complications during L&D than a first twin, but that a planned C-section may prevent such deaths. Furthermore, they reported that there were NO deaths reported among 454 second twins delivered by planned C-section during their research of data collected from '92 to '97.

Sounds to me like she went against the best advice from her physicians.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 103002.php

Caesarean delivery of twins may prevent deaths
Birth order, gestational age, and risk of delivery related perinatal death in twins: retrospective cohort study BMJ Volume 325, pp 1004-6
Second twins born at term are at higher risk of death due to complications during labour and delivery than first twins, but planned caesarean section may prevent such deaths, concludes a study in this week's BMJ.
Researchers analysed the births of over 4,500 twins born in Scotland between 1992 and 1997 and found significantly increased risks of death during labour and neonatal death among second twins born at term. No deaths were recorded among 454 second twins delivered at term by planned caesarean section.

The absolute risk of death for second twins born at term was approximately 1 in 270 for all causes, 1 in 350 for death due to lack of oxygen (anoxia) during the birth, and 1 in 500 for anoxic death due to mechanical problems. These absolute risks are high in comparison with similar data for singleton term births in Scotland over the same period, say the authors.

Since these deaths seem to be attributable to labour, planned caesarean delivery may offer some protection, suggest the authors.

"We propose that women with twins should be counselled about the risk to the second twin and the theoretical possibility of a protective effect of planned caesarean section when considering mode of delivery at term," they conclude

As for just how risky C-sections actually are for the birth mother, I'm still trying to find any information (and not having much luck).

[OtherHD]

brettjrob...come on! You act like the whole world should go by what YOU think is right.

Please. Who here doesn't?

[Anonymous]

Btw, you call a c-section a risky medical procedure but you fail to mention that it's a very low risk procedure.

It may not be overly risky, but any procedure involving anesthesia is risky enough to where I think it is obvious that no one should have it legally forced upon them. Don't get me wrong... I haven't seen any statistics on the procedure, and from what I gather it is fairly low-risk... but all the same, it carries some risk, which is reason enough to discount the notion that the government has any right to make it mandatory.

[Anonymous]

This is no different that allowing someone legally to drink but at the same time prosecuting them if they drive and kill someone.

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever seen... drunk driving vs. refusing full-blown surgery under anesthesia... I don't even know how to begin to relate the two in order to form an argument against it. Please elaborate on any similarities between those two actions.

[mf_dolphin]

Willfully taking an action that results in the death of another. Pretty simple analogy but since it doesn't agree with your arguement I guess I had to explain it Also, why did you not say anything about the Utah law? If I remember right you chastised me for picking selected parts of a post to respond to...

[timNms]

Btw, you call a c-section a risky medical procedure but you fail to mention that it's a very low risk procedure.

It may not be overly risky, but any procedure involving anesthesia is risky enough to where I think it is obvious that no one should have it legally forced upon them. Don't get me wrong... I haven't seen any statistics on the procedure, and from what I gather it is fairly low-risk... but all the same, it carries some risk, which is reason enough to discount the notion that the government has any right to make it mandatory.

Natural childbirth also carries "some risk". If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that she took some form of medication to ease the pain caused from childbirth. There is risk involved there also.

Speaking from experience (well, not my own, but my wife's), c-sections are painful, BUT the risk involved was very low. She had to have sections with both of our kids. When our daughter was born, the way the drs. made the cut was up and down. When our son was born 8 yrs later, times had changed. They made what is called a bikini cut which went from side to side (about 4 inches long, if that long) and it was below the clothing line. Neither scar is very noticeable. She was also allowed to stay awake during the procedure by having an epidural (something MANY women have during normal childbirth) and I was in the room when our son was born.
If scarring is the mother's reasoning, it's a lame one. What person in their right mind would not do whatever was necessary to save the life of their child???? I think the woman should be made to pay for the death of her child when she CLEARLY had the option to save it's life.

[sunnyday]

You can bet that this selfish woman would choose to have major surgery with any kind of scar necessary to save her own life rather than to let herself die!!! On the not so nice to say side, her looks are nothing to shout about, and an unseen scar wouldn't hurt her at all.

[timNms]

sunnyday, I was thinking the same thing after seeing the picture, but didn't want to say it

[sunnyday]

I shouldn't have said such a cruel thing, but it makes me angry to see someone playing fast and loose with an innocent baby's life.

[southerngale]

Yep sunnyday, most people are outraged by this.

[blizzard]

Yep sunnyday, most people are outraged by this.

That's putting it mildly, Kelly...