Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Yahoo ^ | 3/12/04 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE

[drjimmy]

The child without question died because this woman refused to deal with the situation, despite repeated warnings, not about mere risks (which is what you're talking about), but an actual medical emergency in which the child's life was clearly at stake.

You're forgetting that the doctors were actually wrong. The doctors repeatedly told the woman that both babies would die without a c-section, and that's not what happened.

What about cases where doctors tell women carrying multiple babies that they must abort some of them, or all of them will die? Should these women be forced to undergo an abortion?

[TigersEye]

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.

But for the time being assumption and innuendo will do. ???

[BykrBayb]

I'm assuming that the DA is not lying about the evidence he's gathered. Do you know that he is?

[TigersEye]

Assume what you like.

[BykrBayb]

How kind of you! And I give you permission to assume that everyone lied.

[CajunConservative]

OMG!!! Is that her? And she was so worried about a little scar she chose to let her own child die? What are the chances that she could get to keep the other one she wanted dead? Well, at least she still has her looks, such as they are.

I would lay wagers that this woman is either borderline or mildly mentally retarded. Having worked with this population the chances are real likely she simply did not understand the seriousness of the distress to the baby and that she completely misunderstood the procedure. People with this level of function tend to be very concrete thinkers. They are actually about on the level of a 5 year old.

[GraceCoolidge]

While this woman's choice (if accurately reported) is downright evil, from a legal perspective, I do not understand how they can charge her. If abortion is legal (even partial birth abortion), then how can she be prosecuted? If you believe it's "her body" and "her choice" whether to have the child at all, then how can she be prosecuted because she chose not to have a C section? I mean, she could have chosen to have an abortion and not have delivered at all. I think what this situation really shows is the hypocrisy in the pro-abortion stance. By the same token, I always want to ask pro-abortion activists if they object to sex selection abortions. After all, if it is the woman's "choice" to carry the child to term, what difference does her reasoning make? If abortion is really all the woman's decision, then her reason for the decision should be irrelevant. After all, what's the difference between "I'm not ready to raise a child," and "I'm not ready to raise a female child"? To me, this tension just shows the fallacy of the pro-abortion arguments.

[OldBlondBabe]

Very well stated. My thoughts exactly.

[r9etb]

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

Thank you for pointing out where I misrepresented the article. I should have paid closer attention (I was skipping back and forth.)

However, upon correction I find that your argument is even less convincing than it was before -- which is really saying something.

For example, I did mistakenly say that the child died during birth, when in fact the child had died in utero, two days prior. The correction merely bolsters the case that the woman's refusal to have the C-section did in fact result in the death of the child, as the child was alive at the time she refused it and, according to the coroner, would have survived the C-section. And the lady KNEW it, because she was told so in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!!!!!

So -- there's some facts for you to chew on.

As for the "didn't want a scar" comment, I confess that I took that from a radio news story, where it was presented as a quote. This article merely suggests her aversion to scars by quoting her as saying, "it would ruin my life" to be cut from crotch to sternum (which she would not have been). Others are quoted as saying that she had "cosmetic concerns," so it's entirely likely that the radio report was substantially correct.

So, yes -- I did misstate some things, though without real damage to the claims I'm making.

You, OTOH, are working hard to ignore the facts of the case, because you've apparently got some sort of weird little ideological bee under your bonnet.

[gracie1]

What about cases where doctors tell women carrying multiple babies that they must abort some of them, or all of them will die? Should these women be forced to undergo an abortion?

Here's another slippery slope for all of you modern day Solomons:

Woman is carry multiple fetuses. She is told by her doctor she must abort some of them, or she risks losing all of them. She refuses, and then experiences a miscarriage, losing all babies.

Should she be charged with a crime? If she had selectively aborted some of the fetuses, one or two might have lived. Or all could have died anyway if the procedure induced a miscarriage.

The lesson is we don't live in a perfect world, we can't control the outcome to fit our needs.

[BykrBayb]

She went to the hospital because she suspected something was wrong. The doctors confirmed what she already knew, that the babies were in danger. I wonder where her husband was this whole time.

[petitfour]

Can the authorities prove that the baby would have lived had the baby been delivered via C-section? They told her that the babIES would probably die. One died. One did not. How many babies die even after C-section? How many babies are stillborn? Should women who receive no prenatal care and whose babies die at birth criminals?

Fifty years ago, this situation would have been tragic but acceptable. And abortion was illegal then.

[petitfour]

That should read: Should women who receive no prenatal care and whose babies die at birth be charged as criminals?

[r9etb]

The doctors repeatedly told the woman that both babies would die without a c-section, and that's not what happened.

According to the article, "Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police." That's the "official" line. I can, however, see how the doctors might emphasize the "will die" aspect to prevent the sort of death that did actually occur.

What about cases where doctors tell women carrying multiple babies that they must abort some of them, or all of them will die? Should these women be forced to undergo an abortion?

You're aware, I presume, that abortions and emergency C-sections are vastly different procedures, with vastly different intents and results? I think the primary moral distinction here is that the woman displayed a gross indifference to the life of her children, which did in fact result in death for one of them.

You do raise a good question, though, for which I do not have a glib response. I think a rational assessment of it would require us first to look at the morality of the fertility treatments which led up to such ambiguous questions in the first place. I think the underlying question is, "is it morally permissible to undertake a fertility procedure, the result of which will often involve a decision of whether or not to kill some of the children so-concieved?"

[r9etb]

I wonder where her husband was this whole time.

I think we can both guess that the answer to that question can be found in John 4....

[r9etb]

Can the authorities prove that the baby would have lived had the baby been delivered via C-section?

According to the coroner, the child would have survived a C-section.

[Theophilus]

There's a child who would not be dead

How can you be so certain? If C-Sections are safer than natural child birth, should'nt all deliveries be by C-Section? Considering this woman's visage, I'm inclined to believe that the charge that vanity was her rational might be lie.

[xm177e2]

Doctors have no more right to demand a woman undergo a surgical procedure because it might be good for the babies as they do to demand a woman undergo an abortion because it might be good for the babies (when women receive fertility treatments, if they have too many babies, doctors will recommend they have a few abortions and keep the rest).

[The Westerner]

All their bodies belong to pro-life lunatics.

[drjimmy]

You do raise a good question, though, for which I do not have a glib response. I think a rational assessment of it would require us first to look at the morality of the fertility treatments which led up to such ambiguous questions in the first place. I think the underlying question is, "is it morally permissible to undertake a fertility procedure, the result of which will often involve a decision of whether or not to kill some of the children so-concieved?"
I agree that there are many moral questions over this issue, and that what the woman did in this case was morally wrong. On the other hand, I believe that it sets a bad precedent to try to make it legally wrong. I think the legal aphorism that "Hard cases make bad law" applies in this instance.