Right to Choose?

[cubedbee]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"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.

Wow. What a country we live in. Woman chooses she doesn't want a baby, purposefully has the unborn child killed, and its OK. Woman chooses she wants a natural childbirth, the unborn child dies naturally, and she's charged with murder.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html

[Griffin 5]

It can't be true, because I have read in this forum that there is no way a woman would make such a selfish decision towards the end of a pregnancy.

[RedSoxFan]

How is this different than abortion? They said the twins would die, and she said she'd rather have one of them die than have the scars.

And abortion this late is considered murder. Thus, the murder charge.

[cubedbee]

An abortion involves purposefully killing a baby. This woman chose to have a natural childbirth. Yes, she did so for stupid reasons, but thats not the point. This baby died naturally. Are you telling me that women don't have the right to a natural childbirth? That hospitals can dictate the medical procedures they must use, with the threat of criminal charges if they fail to comply?

[yoyo]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan

And abortion this late is considered murder.

? Not in the eyes on the law.

[Traci]

It can't be true, because I have read in this forum that there is no way a woman would make such a selfish decision towards the end of a pregnancy.

It's extrememly rare - but no one said it never happens.

I'm afraid in the interest of consistency, I would not have charged her with murder. But she certainly is an idiot.

Especially since, anymore, unless it is an emergency c-section, the scar is practically invisible.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Originally Posted by Traci

It's extrememly rare - but no one said it never happens.

Yeah, it only happens a million or so times a year.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

Essentially, this woman would rather have a baby die than to subject her body to that pain. That sounds like every other abortion to me (just substitute "carry the baby to term, and then put up for adoption" for "be cut like that"

[Griffin 5]

Originally Posted by Traci

It's extrememly rare - but no one said it never happens.

Except you.

[codex]

Originally Posted by CubedBee

Wow. What a country we live in. Woman chooses she doesn't want a baby, purposefully has the unborn child killed, and its OK. Woman chooses she wants a natural childbirth, the unborn child dies naturally, and she's charged with murder.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html

Just because the technology is available to save the babies doesn't mean the mother should be forced to follow that route. If she prefers natural childbirth over the alternative, why should anyone but herself have the choice?

Compare this to someone with cancer who chooses not to go through radiation therapy. Yes the technology is available, but that certainly does not mean it has to be used. If the patient chooses not to go through with it that is perfectly acceptable.

As much as this is a selfish decision for the woman to make, why shouldn't she have the choice?

[Traci]

Yeah, it only happens a million or so times a year.

The vast majority of abortions are done within the first trimester. Last trimester abortions are rare (about .3% if I remember the stats) and what is extremely rare is a late term abortion that is done for selfish reasons such as those described in this case.

Except you.

Whatever Grif - you're such a troll.

Essentially, this woman would rather have a baby die than to subject her body to that pain. That sounds like every other abortion to me (just substitute "carry the baby to term, and then put up for adoption" for "be cut like that"

That's why I would not have charged her with murder. As long as the baby is still inside her body - it's her choice to make.

She's not a criminal, IMO - just a selfish idiot.