12-03-2004 19:46									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Wow, what a horrible woman.

-Arrian

	12-03-2004 19:48									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Utah is kinda weird this way. (and many other ways )

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08272003/utah/87281.asp

	12-03-2004 19:50									#33
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Azazel what would be an appropriate charge, GePap?

No idea. Not being a lawyer, I won't speculate on which laws might fit-specially in that specific state.

	12-03-2004 20:35									#34
	Support Apolyton

1. The woman's reasons, while weak, are being used against her when she was talking in what she assumed to be a confidential situation.

2. The woman really should give the other child up for adoption.

	12-03-2004 20:43									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

She could be declared unfit to be a mother.

	12-03-2004 20:45									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: “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.

The woman obviously didn't want her incredible good looks ruined...

	12-03-2004 20:50									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'm with Azazel. Murder is too much. Endangerment or perhaps some prenatal version of negligance. She clearly was an idiot but on the face of things she has the right to refuse treatment. Since however she has lives depending upon her, she has imposed upon them.

	12-03-2004 20:54									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

She had a right to refuse the operation, end of story.

I might disapprove of the choice or the result, but thats it as far as that goes.

	12-03-2004 20:56									#39
	Remove this text

Oh I'm not arguing that point. I'd argue that she should be ceclared an unfit mother for the surviving twin though.

	12-03-2004 21:35									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

You people.

Surgery is a deeply personal event and decision. Refusing to go under the knife doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you an unfit mother.

	12-03-2004 22:50									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm gonna agree w/ Che - I don't think there should be any punishment.

	12-03-2004 22:55									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara nor does it make you an unfit mother.

Saying that you'd rather have your kids die than have an unsightly scar on your body goes along way toward justifying that claim though.

	12-03-2004 22:58									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

Unless there's a law mandating that one must undergo such an operation if the doctors recommend it, I can't see the murder charge. But I think she should be hit was a negligence charge, perhaps even manslaughter.

	12-03-2004 22:59									#44
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You people. Surgery is a deeply personal event and decision. Refusing to go under the knife doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you an unfit mother.

This is a special case. In this case your decision has massive implications for the lives of others, others who you are responsible for bringing into being.

For example, if you gave your friend some home brew and it wrecked his kidneys and he needed to be hooked up to another person for dialysis, then the state would be fully justified in compelling you to be that other person.

People who think we have absolute rights are dreamers and don't understand how rights really work.

	12-03-2004 23:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You people. Surgery is a deeply personal event and decision. Refusing to go under the knife doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you an unfit mother.

Should Christian scientists be held responsible on some level if their kid dies because they refuse to take the kid in for medical treatment?

	12-03-2004 23:01									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You people. Surgery is a deeply personal event and decision. Refusing to go under the knife doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you an unfit mother.

	12-03-2004 23:03									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Should Christian scientists be held responsible on some level if their kid dies because they refuse to take the kid in for medical treatment?

Absolutely. The State need not stand by while people's stupid superstitions endanger human life.

	12-03-2004 23:14									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Are Caesarean Sections covered under whatever equivalent the US has to nationalized healthcare?

	12-03-2004 23:15									#49
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Absolutely. The State need not stand by while people's stupid superstitions endanger human life.

First, the state needs to offer universally free healthcare.

	12-03-2004 23:17									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

Charge her with something... not murder, perhaps (it's probably something they can plea down with), but negligent homicide or something. Give her a nice little fine.

	12-03-2004 23:17									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Stuie cracks me up.

Really, I do not see any difference between this and abortion. Or rather, abortion, which is the intentional murder of a child is far worse.

Of course that is my opinion and not the law.

	12-03-2004 23:19									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: First, the state needs to offer universally free healthcare.

Who says her insurance wouldn't have covered a C-section?

	12-03-2004 23:20									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

From a legal perspective, perhaps the law students can help me out:

We know the state can limit what surgical procedures a pregnant woman can elect to undergo (abortion). But can the state legally enforce a pregnant woman to undergo a surgical procedure she does not wish to have?

	12-03-2004 23:24									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Guy: dunno

It would depend on the laws of the state. It could be stated that the woman, who did not want an abortion, had a duty to to do everything she reasonably could to protect the life of the children. And it could be said that a C-section was a reasonable procedure... maybe her insurance covered it and all she'd have was a small scar. I guess the difference is in her intention of having the children and not aborting them, it falls on the line. It's a tough case, basically.

	12-03-2004 23:27									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This is inconsistent with a woman's right to kill her children for "health" reasons. Obviously, concern for her beauty is a legitimate health concern that we all should support.

(I wonder how the Supremes would deal with this hypocrisy.)

	12-03-2004 23:28									#56
	Support Apolyton

And here we are, set to discuss Roe v. Wade in my law class today... how serendipitous.

	12-03-2004 23:30									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Guy, make me proud... argue AGAINST it, but say you are PRO-CHOICE. You'll either piss off everyone or gain the respect of everyone .

I don't see many pro-choice people who are against Roe like myself, though .

	12-03-2004 23:36									#58
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Saying that you'd rather have your kids die than have an unsightly scar on your body goes along way toward justifying that claim though.

So says the DA. I don't see anyone quoting the mother as saying that. I see a nurse telling her it would ruin her life. That would be a fairly strong motivation not to go under the knife.

Boris, forcing Christian Scientist's to treat thir children is different, as children are wards and cannot make competnet decisions for themselves. It's one thing for an adult to refuse treatement, its another for an adult to refuse treatement to a child.

Anyway, if you support the riht to choice, you have to respect this women's decision and realize that this charge is just a back door assault on the right to abortion.

	12-03-2004 23:37									#59
	Remove this text

There are a few claims being made on this thread that state the decision was made on cosmetic grounds. However that claim appears to come from the prosecutors, and looks like an assumption on their part in the article.

Does anyone have anything actually convincing?

	12-03-2004 23:40									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Anyway, if you support the riht to choice, you have to respect this women's decision and realize that this charge is just a back door assault on the right to abortion.

She didn't ask for an abortion. If that were the case, then it would be ok. It's a degree of subtlety, but important. After all, if you crash into a car and a woman loses her baby, you get charged for manslaughter. The personhood of the unborn seemingly is tied to the intention of the mother (and she did not intend to abort), but this is a very interesting case.