Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Yahoo ^ | 3/12/04 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE

[TigersEye]

OMG!!! Is that her?

Please keep in mind that this photo was taken after nine months of pregnancy, labor and delivery, probably drugs for l&d, pressure to have a surgery she was afraid of, loss of one child and a charge of murder laid against her. I'm sure she wouldn't clean up well enough for the SI swimsuit issue but I'll bet she's had better "hair days."

[TigersEye]

Wasn't it her choice to not have the cesarean?

Apparently the hospital/doctors/nurses went along with it without official complaint ... until afterwards anyway.

[gracie1]

It's good to see another person not willing to judge her mental abilities based on a mug shot. I haven't seen many women who looked ready for the runway after delivery.

[r9etb]

You ask a very good set of questions. Let's look at this one:

In general, when does a doctor's advice acquire the force of law?

I think you've missed an important point here. The prosecutor is not claiming that the doctor's advice "has the force of law." What the prosecutor is claiming is, the woman knowingly (she was told many, many times) took actions that did result in the death of the child.

The "doctor's advice" in this case has basically the same status as that of an eyewitness to a crime -- it is used to bolster the prosecution's claim that there is absolutely no way she didn't know what she was doing. She knew precisely what she was doing, and she expressed a blatant disregard for the lives of both twins. She is certainly responsible for the death of the child, and she deserves a criminal trial.

[TigersEye]

The child without question died because this woman refused to deal with the situation, ...

I would say there is a big question. One of her babies lived. So where was the certainty that they would die without a C-section?

Can the doctors now give us the certainty that both babies and the mother would have lived if she had had the C-section?

[Aquinasfan]

"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," she said.

Uh, she chose to murder her child.

[TigersEye]

I haven't seen too many flattering mug-shots either! LOL

[BykrBayb]

The woman is butt-ugly. Even if she was drop-dead gorgeous, that's not reason enough to kill her own children. If she declined the c-section for some legitimate reason, that would be different. Even ignorance would be acceptable. But to kill your own children for vanity - there's no excuse. I fully expected that she was a woman who cares so much about her appearance, that was even more important than the lives of her children. This is a picture of a woman who couldn't give a rat's behind what she looks like, and she cares even less about her kids.

[TigersEye]

But to kill your own children for vanity - there's no excuse.

And where did you get the idea that she did that?

[BykrBayb]

She said so.

[TigersEye]

Where?

[MrB]

They were trying to get around the fact that they couldn't charge her for simply being ugly.

[r9etb]

I would say there is a big question. One of her babies lived. So where was the certainty that they would die without a C-section?

That's like saying that a fellow who shoots somebody is innocent because he "didn't know the gun was loaded," even after being told that it was loaded.

Let's assume that the facts presented in the story are correct. Thus we know that:

1. One of the twins died during childbirth.
2. This consequence was repeatedly predicted prior to birth.
3. The lady said she didn't care if both twins died: she didn't want that scar.

Now, we can certainly theorize that her fear of the knife led her to refuse a C-section.

But we have to face facts here. There is the simple fact that the child was alive on January 2, when she refused a C-section. There is the document the lady signed, flatly admitting that she knew her actions would likely result in brain damage or death to one or both children. There is also the coroner's finding that the child would have survived the C-section.

And, finally, there is the unpleasant fact that there is dead baby to be buried, because of what this pig-headed woman did.

[uncitizen]

So then if she wanted to have a partial birth abortion the doctors woulda been fine with it?

[BykrBayb]

Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."

Shall we assume that she thought scars were dangerous?

[OldBlondBabe]

"Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

I didn't see any direct quotes from the woman stating that she refused the surgery for reasons of vanity. The article doesn't state that she said she didn't want to be scarred, rather that the "Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred".

I'm not ready to judge her, based on the minimal information we've been given.

[BykrBayb]

If the facts turn out to be different from what we have to go on now, then I'll base my opinion on those facts.

[TigersEye]

Let's assume that the facts presented in the story are correct. Thus we know that:

Let's take a look at the 'facts' you put forth:

1. One of the twins died during childbirth.

Wrong. The child died prior to labor and delivery. The method of delivery had nothing to do with its death.

2. This consequence was repeatedly predicted prior to birth.

Where was the certainty of it? What other options were presented to her? (aka forced labor) What doctor gave her the impression she would be "cut from breast bone to pubic bone,?" Was she informed that this impression of a C-section was wrong?

3. The lady said she didn't care if both twins died: she didn't want that scar.

No where in the article does it say "she didn't want that scar."

You play fast and loose with the 'facts' don't you?

[Salvation]

Hoping this starts to happen more and more often.

[TigersEye]

Shall we assume that she thought scars were dangerous?

Why not? You're assuming that the DA is speaking for her.