I'm so confused!!! To Be or Not to Be???

Muffit · March 25th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Just passed today, a new law that makes it a crime to harm a fetus in the act of committing a violent crime. It also defines life starting at the beginning of gestation. But then comes this:

"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

??? Err, white man speak with forked tongue

I'm so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Please know I mean no disrespect to either side of the abortion issue, I'm just baffled beyond words at this apparent contradiction... ("right to life" is the exact expression pro-life folks use...)

Rowan · March 25th, 2004, 05:41 PM

I'm confused with the first sentence of your post

"a crime to harm a fetus in the act of committing a violent crime. "

is this how it is written? does this mean that a pregnant woman who shoots someone is harming her fetus:laugh:

sorry it's just really poorly phrased...

your a brave soul Muffit I wouldn't have the "lips" (since 14th colony says I can't use male references cause I'm a girl... I was gonna say balls) I would be scared to even discuss this much because it's bound to lead to someone making a comment that will get the whole debate started.

That whole when does life begin is confusing too because it flies in the face of the definition of life established by the scientific community, and if you look at society our birthdays is celebrated on the day we emerge from our mothers we don't count the months spent in her womb. As well I believe in Canada you are not even aknowledged legally as a being until you are a certain amount of days old, ie you don't need a death certificate. We are never going to be able to establish scientifically the existence of a soul...so it will be an unending debate

Dawg · March 25th, 2004, 05:54 PM

That', lil sis, is a profound truth.

And, Muffit, that quote came from an anti-abortion group ("National Right to Life Committee" works to end legal abortions) so the slogan is actually theirs.

This law makes it a separate crime to harm an unborn child, at whatever stage of development, during the course of a violent crime. This law came about because some local DA wanted to charge a violent criminal for murder for causing a pregnant woman to lose the baby during an assault, and found there was no law on the books he could use.

I can't argue much against it, either.

I am
Dawg

warhammerdriver · March 25th, 2004, 05:54 PM

I think this all goes back to the Peterson case. I thought it was a little odd that they charged him with killing his wife and his unborn son. Maybe this is how they're gonna justify the charge?

Muffit, I'm with Rowan on this one. It takes er, um, guts to bring this up on any forum on any board on the 'net

Rowan · March 25th, 2004, 06:14 PM

:light:

Thanks for clearing that up for me big brother, now I understand the reference.
We had an incident similar to this when I worked at a bar. A pregnant woman tried to defend her husband against a bouncer in a fight and she ended up loosing the fetus the next day. With the Peterson case I don't know why they can't charge him with a double murder the baby was found separate from her body doesn't that indicate he was born? or was he cut out of her? (Pretty gruesome topic) we don't get much info on this case up here. It would be very nice to charge people for these actions but it's a slipery slope. A very fine legal line to walk indeed!

Having had a couple of miscarriages myself I understand that kind of loss, but I can't imagine what it must feel like if it was due to the actions of another

shiningstar · March 25th, 2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muffit

Just passed today, a new law that makes it a crime to harm a fetus in the act of committing a violent crime. It also defines life starting at the beginning of gestation. But then comes this:

"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

??? Err, white man speak with forked tongue

I'm so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Please know I mean no disrespect to either side of the abortion issue, I'm just baffled beyond words at this apparent contradiction... ("right to life" is the exact expression pro-life folks use...)

What the law is 'supposed' to mean is that when the unborn child is HARMED
by a violent crime .................such as Murder, assult or rape ..............then
the charge even when the mother has lived can be raised to be MURDER
depending on the crime .....................such as the case where the man
murdered his wife and unborn son while claiming to be fishing ........I believe that
was the Peterson case.

shiningstar · March 25th, 2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiningstar

What the law is 'supposed' to mean is that when the unborn child is HARMED
by a violent crime .................such as Murder, assult or rape ..............then
the charge even when the mother has lived can be raised to be MURDER
depending on the crime .....................such as the case where the man
murdered his wife and unborn son while claiming to be fishing ........I believe that
was the Peterson case.

And there is another case that was just on the news .........a woman was told
to have a cesarian so the baby could live ............SHE REFUSED ...........not because
she was afraid for her child but 'because she didn't want "STRETCH" Marks."

She lost the baby {I don't know if this'll stand up in court} and was charged
with MURDER.

Rowan · March 25th, 2004, 06:47 PM

I'm afraid that would be crossing my line, I would object to being ordered to do anything to my body no matter the reason...that is a VERY slipery slope...where does that one end

I shudder to think

You don't get stretch marks from having a c-section, perhaps it was a scar she wanted to avoid? either way it sounds to me as if someone needed to do some patient education there, and failed to do so!

Dawg · March 25th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiningstar

And there is another case that was just on the news .........a woman was told
to have a cesarian so the baby could live ............SHE REFUSED ...........not because
she was afraid for her child but 'because she didn't want "STRETCH" Marks."

She lost the baby {I don't know if this'll stand up in court} and was charged
with MURDER.

I know the case you're thinking of, Shiningstar. A woman in Utah was carrying twins and refused to undergo a cesearian to save one of them. That baby died during childbirth; I believe the other lived.

In this case, it's going to be a question of the mother's right to refuse medical intervetion based on religion, even if it could save the life of a child. The Courts have been taking a dim view of withholding medical treatment in life-threatening cases. The wrinkle here is that the procedure would have taken place before the child was actually "born" - but it apparently was viable at the point they would have operated.

Be interesting to see what happens there.

I am
Dawg

Rowan · March 25th, 2004, 07:10 PM

Ok I get it thanks Dawg, that's a tough one there is a lot to consider with a c-section. I've watched a couple of them in person and one was the birth of twins, it can get pretty violent at times in their effort to extract the baby. We had a situation in which a mother had a c-section and the father was upstairs in the nursery with the baby afterwards and the mother started to hemorrhage (they apparently nicked the uterine artery) anyways end result was 25!!! units of blood (we only have about 8-10 in our whole body) she lost her uterus and an ovary. That’s it no more kids, she nearly went into premature menopause but they managed to save her last ovary, they were a young couple and this was their first child. I remember seeing him rocking their baby and the hospital administrator coming in to tell him his wife was in danger of loosing her life and to follow her! Poor guy his heart must have gone from sublime joy to terror in a matter of seconds. I wish people would take c-sections more seriously it's a very serious surgery and not to be entered into lightly, it requires much thought and weighing of all the options. So many girls I talk to say why bother going through the pain of child birth when you can just have a c-section that kind of thinking scares me, on many levels. ok enough diatribe!

sorry long winded today

Muffit · March 25th, 2004, 08:16 PM

Hi all!

I must apologize if I am broaching such a sensitive topic. As a rule, I never post about anything political or otherwise potentially offensive to others. That's why when I posted I made no mention of my position on the issue. It's not my place to say who is right or wrong.

It just caught me off guard (it was on my home page today). Not to disagree or in any way offend anyone, I just thought it was too wierd to use the exact same terminology for two different sides of an issue.

Ah well, it's a strange world!

Please forgive if I have offended anyone, never my intent, ever.
Affectionately to all,
Muffit

Rowan · March 25th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Muffit I hope you are not apologizing to me (or I'm going to have to send you to the thwack thread) I am never offended by a subject! I love discussing tough subjects( took a year of philosophy of ethics one of my fav subjects) I've always loved that scene in the movie REDS were people would get together in living rooms and hash out their political views I always found that so exciting! it was my dream to be the owner of such a living room, how fascinating and exciting to live like that!

Muffit · March 25th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Hi Rowan! Thanks! I just thought I would throw it out and see what folks thought. Even I do things, believe in things, which are in fact contradictory to myself. I guess life is not so much about being perfect, as it is about being the best we can. There is only one black, and one white. But there are a million shades of gray.

The true test in life is treating every shade, as different as they are, the same.

Thank you for your kind words,
Muffit

P.S. I think I will CC this at CA as well, cuz I beagn this topic of there too. Hoped I could spur some interesting discussions...

March 25th, 2004, 11:53 PM

I have had two c-sections. I would never recomend that as a way of avoiding natural childbirth. It took me over a year in both cases and i still have site pain. I don't regret it either because the children are healthy today because of it. I think that education and health care early on helps prevent alot of the preventable stuff. As for charging with murder those individuals involved with violent crimes against fetuses. Perhaps a whole new charge could be created? Just my two cents.

Rowan · March 26th, 2004, 12:22 AM

kat I was kind of thinking along those lines too, any ideas yet on what it might look like... the charge? I'm going to think about it. Although there are probably ideas out there all ready...have you heard any?

bsg1fan1975 · March 26th, 2004, 03:12 AM

my sister had C sections with all three of her children. the last two (my nephews) were preemies and my niece was a big baby.

I hope this new law isn't used to prosecute women who made a moral choice. Otherwise it is a step in the right direction against harming a pregnant woman!

Just my view on it.

March 26th, 2004, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan

kat I was kind of thinking along those lines too, any ideas yet on what it might look like... the charge? I'm going to think about it. Although there are probably ideas out there all ready...have you heard any?

I guess that it might have something to do with interfering with a persons right to reproduce. That it is recognized as a special state and that those who choose to become mothers, are protected by law in this vulnerable state?

kitty · March 27th, 2004, 12:19 AM

Hello,

It looks like you were having an interesting discussion while I was sleeping.

shiningstar · March 27th, 2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warhammerdriver

I think this all goes back to the Peterson case. I thought it was a little odd that they charged him with killing his wife and his unborn son. Maybe this is how they're gonna justify the charge?

Muffit, I'm with Rowan on this one. It takes er, um, guts to bring this up on any forum on any board on the 'net

Actually this goes back even further Warhammerdriver. Several Years further
in fact. I think the concept of this law can even be traced back to Charlie Manson and what he did to the Bates girl and her unborn child.

shiningstar · March 27th, 2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg

I know the case you're thinking of, Shiningstar. A woman in Utah was carrying twins and refused to undergo a cesearian to save one of them. That baby died during childbirth; I believe the other lived.

In this case, it's going to be a question of the mother's right to refuse medical intervetion based on religion, even if it could save the life of a child. The Courts have been taking a dim view of withholding medical treatment in life-threatening cases. The wrinkle here is that the procedure would have taken place before the child was actually "born" - but it apparently was viable at the point they would have operated.

Be interesting to see what happens there.

I am
Dawg

I'm not sure but I truelly don't think THAT is the same case .......I could be wrong

unowhoandwhy · April 9th, 2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiningstar

I'm not sure but I truelly don't think THAT is the same case .......I could be wrong

Can I add a belated word or two to this thread? In the case of the woman with twins, she claimed that it was because she didn't want a scar, but it was later found out that she had previously had a C-section for her other children and is now saying that she wasn't told she had to have a C-section. Here's the last I heard about it, though: http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=80767

A sad story no matter how you look at it. I feel most sorry for the surviving twin, though. I hope she has a wonderful adoptive family and grows up happy and healthy.