Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Here's a tricky one...Abortion inside!
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
Here's a tricky one...Abortion inside!  Reply with quote  

Well...not really...but the arguments regarding abortion will be similar to those regarding this, although it has an interesting twist:

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

Please comment.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

To be fair, those scars would have totally made her look ugly.



A women with such perspectives shouldn't be raising children regardless. She deserves significant penalties but jail time is a little harsh in context. Maybe some heavy fines and a fucking reality check.


Last edited by MF TOON on Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
27



Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 895
 Reply with quote  

This is a wierd story......it is unfortunate that the baby died but in my opinion its crazy to say that this lady MURDERED her baby because it was born dead, even if her decision resulted in her babies death. If I decide to make a right hand turn on a street instead of a left with my kid in the car and i get in an accident will i get charged with murder for not making a right? Maybe a lesser charge is the right thing to do. The lady could have died because of the c section and had that happend would they have charged the baby with murdering her mother.....like I said, wierd story.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

27 wrote:
If I decide to make a right hand turn on a street instead of a left with my kid in the car and i get in an accident will i get charged with murder for not making a right?


This person understood the context of her situation though. It wasn't just negligance or accidental inadvertence, you can't even offer that example. Her actions were based on malice in light of her lopsided priorities which put her self-centered and egocentric ugly ass self in front of her own child's life. It might not be considered murder under common circumstance, but her selfishness directly obstructed any chances her baby might have had to live and ultimately chose to sacrifice it's life for nothing significant. I don't know what would be suitable justification, but penalties are definitely deserving.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

So I'm guessing you're both pro-life, right?

I suppose the concept of cutting someone's stomach open to remove a baby might seem natural to SOME people, but to me it does not. And it certainly doesn't seem like the kind of thing that the State should require of one of its citizens if said State would like to be in congruence with the concept of freedom.

I'm just checking for consistancy. It seems like nobody wants to fight to keep laws off our well-being. You can DIE from an improperly performed c-section, in addition to the scars. I understand the chance is negligible - but should the government really have the right to FORCE you to take ANY chance in that regard?

- Shane
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:13 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
2b
SHAKESPERIAN ACTOR


Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 4584
Location: A stain by the bay...
 Reply with quote  

Should they have the right, no, do they possess the ability to force you to take a chance and possibly die, yes they do it on a daily basis. I for one am for the choice of the mother in this case from what I've gathered from you people's discussion (haven't read the article). I mean, I like babies and all, and would love to see them live, but it should always be someone's choice on whether they should risk their lives for the child inside.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

I don't think I'm really pro-anything decided, it's a matter of circumstance really because these are all individual issues and I don't believe that anything of controvertible human moral question should be determined by society unanimously.

If intervention in such a context was the only means of survival for the child, than I believe that such should be pertinent. If risk is a factor on either side, than no, the government should not have the ultimate right to FORCE anyone to comply with their positions because that debates an entirely different subject of opressive control and basic individual rights of life and liberty, however, if the decision was purely based on superficial aesthetical merrits, than I believe that some sort of legislation should be warranted.

Life is not a matter of personal priority or convenience and I do not believe that humans should have the freedom to assume that right carelessly or take such for granted, such as the position of this woman.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Craig a.d.



Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: America's High-Five
 Reply with quote  

ugh, this is why I hate the press. This is beside the point but seriously was that the ONLY picture they had of her? Making her out to be the evil negligent(sp) mother? Cnn blows for that.

to the story at hand though, "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," Driessen said. No doubt. It's her choice. This whole article seemed surreal to me like it was a phony link. Given the fact that she comes across unstable in the article, it is still HER body and HER babies. If she chooses natural birth, then natural birth it is. I don't see how you can penalize a choice.



p.s. Natural Selection
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
27



Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 895
 Reply with quote  

You can penalize a choice very easily....i choose to kill, i get penalized. But what this lady did was very different. Besides, I just had a little chat with god and he said that baby was gonna be a serial killer when he grew up. If I had two things growing in my stomach and somone told me I should let them slice my torso open to remove said things I'd probally tell them to fuck off.

Oh yeah, not that it matters but I am a product of a c-section and I would have died if I was born natural.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

27 wrote:
Oh yeah, not that it matters but I am a product of a c-section and I would have died if I was born natural.


Yes, and I was a scheduled abortion that was cancelled. Go figure. I wonder if this affects my perspective, because I don't think the world would be profoundly different without me in it.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
2b
SHAKESPERIAN ACTOR


Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 4584
Location: A stain by the bay...
 Reply with quote  

Well Shane, without you and the things you've put together, I would be without a few good people that I now associate with. So thank you friend, you have made a change even if you didn't notice it. So hah.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

MF TOON wrote:
If risk is a factor on either side, than no, the government should not have the ultimate right to FORCE anyone to comply with their positions because that debates an entirely different subject of opressive control and basic individual rights of life and liberty, however, if the decision was purely based on superficial aesthetical merrits, than I believe that some sort of legislation should be warranted.


Interesting.

WHY she doesn't want the surgery, to me, is irrelevant and let me explain how:

There IS a risk to a C-section, and I think this is relevant even if it isn't why she opted out of the surgery. Some people need to perform natural childbirth for religious reasons, as well - and I'm not into the State restricting people from their religious beliefs. These are all good reasons, IN ADDITION, to just reducing the amount of children brought into this overpopulated ball of dirt.

- Shane
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
devenir



Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 35
 Reply with quote  

there are so many things that are wrong about this situation, it's hard to know where to start. first of all, it does seem that this woman has her priorities way the fuck out of wack and that she may indeed be far from an ideal parent. BUT the fact that she is being charged with a crime for a decision she made about a fetus that was living in her body is ludicris. not to get too far into the pro-choice rhetoric here, but seriously, if it's in my body, i get to say what happens to it - i have the choice to follow the advice of my doctor or not, whether that advice is to take vitamins or have a c-section. and my government certainly doesn't have the right to reach into my womb and confer rights upon and make declarations about what is at that moment a part of my body. my body my choice, seriously.

my second problem with this issue is that the c-section has become a far too common and often unecessary proceedure. i'm not saying that it wasn't warranted in this situation, or that it isn't an important and live saving practice (i was born this way). i'm just saying that doctors are preforming more c-sections now than they ever have, and often those are not in emergency situations. in this "gotta have it now" culture that we live in, doctors often tell women who are having a slow or difficult labor that they should give up and have a c-section, as it would be so much quicker and easier than their current toil. quicker and easier? please. not enough attention is paid to the fact that a c-section involves slicing through the muscles of the abdominal wall, the core of the body's strength. does anyone have any idea how long it takes to recover from surgery of this nature? my mom couldn't tie her shoes for a freaking month after she had me - i wonder how the hell she was able to be up and around and looking after a screaming infant? and to top it all off, women are allowed to recover in the hospital only two days after a c-section. anyway, it seems like if this woman gets raked over the coals for her choice, it will give doctors a reason to badger their patients with "you better have a c-section, you don't want to be like evil old what's-her-name".

anyway, this whole issue is a mess and i hate the fact that the media is already having a heyday casting this woman as an unnatural monster (seriously, as was said before, is that really the only picture of her they could find?!). granted she made a cracked out and selfish decision, but the world is full of people who act the same way. and since, in my opinion, she had every right to make this choice given that she is the only person who has a right to make decisions about her body, it seems to me that the powers that be can go find some really awful people, those who are currently beating the shit out of the kids they have now, and post nasty pictures of them all over creation.

sorry about the ranting, but this really pisses me off.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Shane, there are also eccentric people who will refuse and withold blood tranfusions for their children in life and death emergency situations due to religious beliefs. Ignorance in the face of religion is an ugly scapegoat. People will always be allowed to practice religion freely and that's important regardless of the standpoint that you take, but to overlook and disregard the health and condition of children who aren't even old enough to establish their own prospect and precedence is no fucking excuse. Many selfish and barbaric acts have been claimed in the name of religion but that's not really on topic man.

As far as the risk involved, I'm really not too well informed on what goes into c-sections so I just assumed it probable that there were varying levels. This is simply based on my recognition of the fact that it is not such an uncommon practice and that would be most apparent given the fact that on this messagboard alone, ironically enough in this vary thread, there are already 2 people who were conceived through cesareans. I just feel that unless the context is one of fateful significance or again, based on relative individual circumstance, than what this woman did should not be taken with a grain of salt.

Having a human pulled from your insides is never gonna be easy. It's possible that less pain and anxiety might even be endured through alternative methods as such, but regardless, people should not be producing offspring unless they are ready to deal with all circumstances and responsibilities. Do I agree with the ideas of abortion... It's a helluva lot more productive than bringing a child into the world that one is not ready to assume responsibility of raising. Ultimately, people should just be mature enough to recognize the cause and effects of everything that they do and be able to appreciate the fact that human life (all life for that matter) at any stage is meaningful.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

man forget everything i said, i agree with devenir.

i think it would be suitable for government to fix monetary penalties for people who chose to be heedless and irresponsible in such situations though.
Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:18 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon