Boundless Stupidity leads to an interesting question

[She-ra]

I found this link on another forum I frequent, and I'd like to see what y'all think about it.



SALT LAKE CITY - As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. 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 case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.


"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.


Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.


Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.


The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.


Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.


On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. 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.


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."


LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.


The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.


She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.


If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.


A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.


"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.


Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.


"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.

The question is: Should you be forced to have surgery to save someone elses life?

The picture, btw, is hideous, and may give some insight into the type of person we're dealing with.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040311/480/utsac10103112353

[CDThardass]

that is the ugliest woman ive seen today. wow....

anyway, it is her choice if she does or does not want to have the operation done, so i dont think she should be charged with anything.

if anything she should be charges with 1st degree uglyness.

[Sammy Sandbag]

I found this link on another forum I frequent, and I'd like to see what y'all think about it.

Perhaps this forum:

http://www.edodo.org/rumormill/viewtopic.php?t=2935

A few interesting points brought up, one of the posters is a med student. Apparently the woman has already had her other child taken away by the state, not a bad idea in my opinion. Just another example of who should not be having kids.

[ZaQ]

.....Damn that's an ugly bitch.

[She-ra]

^^^Thats not the point. The point is, at what point do the rights of another person interfer with your own? Should you be legally obligated to have surgery to save someone elses life?

[roger29]

Yes, she is ugly as sin...makes me wonder who the hell would ever inpregnate her!

Within this subject, I don't think I agree with her being charged with murder. Since when is having a natural birth wrong? Even though her reasons for opting against a csection were selfish, she should be allowed to choose whatever she wishes when delivering.

[Holt]

hmm complicated issue... i'm going back to the FOD bucket

[ZaQ]

^^^Thats not the point. The point is, at what point do the rights of another person interfer with your own? Should you be legally obligated to have surgery to save someone elses life?

Oh, then.... There are always two sides to everything. I kinda agree with both sides. I wouldn't want to be forced to have surgery performed upon me. But then again laws state that little fetus is still a person with rights. So I can see both sides of it, but what gets me is I always thought a mother would do anything for the good of her children. I think it's kinda obvious that this woman didn't care if one of them were to die. And if she as a mother doesn't care about the welfare of her children then I think she shouldn't be allowed to raise them.

How's that She-ra?

[She-ra]

Wonderful, ZaQ. As someone who wants nothing more than to be a mother in the (distant) future, I think what she did was deplorable, and that she at the very least should be forced into some form of sterility. However, I also believe that, even if the fetuses are granted human rights, it does not make it manslaughter for her to refuse to have surgery for their benefit. Its like saying that if your son needed a kidney transplant and you refused, that you are guilty of manslaughter. It may be vile and regunant, but murder it is not. Or even to take the family thing out of it - its like watching someone drown in a lake and not helping them. You might be an asshole, but not a murderer.

[Zirkowitz]

my question: why is it illegal to do what she did, but its not illegal to have an abortion? any thoughts?

[ZaQ]

I'm against abortion with the exeption of a rape situation. Not for the reason I think it's murder but for the reason that people know what causes children. There are condoms, pills, patches, and surgical operations that can prevent pregnancy. Yet girls still get pregnant. I think it's thier own damn fault and they should have to live with the consequences. But rape on the other hand is forced and she would have no choice about what is happening to her.

Sorry bout the spelling.

[She-ra]

my question: why is it illegal to do what she did, but its not illegal to have an abortion? any thoughts?

An excellent question. I think what her prosecuters are going to run by is that while an abortion is preformed with the specific intent to end the life of the fetus, this woman refused treatment that would have saved her child's life. It makes a fine line between the two, and starts down the road of "what next?" Do we begin to prosecute scientologists for praying that their children get better, rather than taking them to a doctor? Its an interesting prospect, and certainly one that will have to be considered by whomever decides this case.

[Zirkowitz]

i doubt we've heard the last of this story.

[Domer]

I think the real question is when does life start? The baby was not yet born, so was it ever alive on its own to be killed? Some say the third trimester starts life... who knows. As far as I know, I won't play God, and neither should the police, or doctors or whoever. I cannot comment on this question.

[AirborneAli]

And another twist, should I be forced to have surgery because my kidney is the only one that matches Domer's? By not having the surgery, I kill him. Just a thought.

The baby was PART of her body, and it was a person soley dependent on the mother. Lock her up, she killed a baby to avoid a Caesarean which probably would have been less painful anyway.

[gracefulc]

While I agree this is a tough one, I think what she did was horrible. If she cared that little about the kid, why didn't she end the pregnancy when it first began? I am only in favor of abortions when rape occured, otherwise I am against them, but this is a situation where she obviously didn't want the kid very much so she should've just ended it before it became a fetus (fetus being the point at which it is considered a baby/human/whatever you wanna call it). We watched a very cool video in my human anatomy course that showed the differences as a baby grows and I agree that 3months is the point where you are killing something that has a VERY high chance of becoming a human. Prior to that, it's mostly cells and general DNA programming for what to do.

But I mean, at 5 months a fetus recognizes and responds to sound and light; I consider that a sign of intelligence and life.

Sorry, got off track, back to the issue. One thing nobody has mentioned; this baby was a twin. How would you feel if you found out you had a twin sibling but your mother refused to even ATTEMPT to save him/her? I would not be able to look at my mother in the same way ever again. I pity that child that did surive as he will have to live knowing that his/her sibling didn't even have a chance at life b/c their mother refused a fairly routine surgery.

[TheChick]

AA, you're making the assumption that everyone believes that this fetus was actually a person. There is still the question of whether the fetus is a "person" before birth. It's the same question/debate that makes abortion such a hot topic. Some people believe that the embryo is a person upon conception. Some believe it becomes a person upon the "quickening" (the first time the fetus moves inside the womb, which usually happens at some point within the second trimester, if I remember correctly). Some believe it is a person once it reaches "viability", which is to say, it could survive outside the womb, which is possible anytime within the third trimester. And some believe that a fetus is not a person until birth.

However, while there is still a lot of debate about this, there is one place where there is no question. According to FEDERAL law, as of right now, a fetus does not have any human rights. Pres. Bush has tried to pass some laws that give the fetus rights over the mother, so that cases like this would be judged in favor of the fetus, however, from what I can remember, they had not passed, YET.

So, long story short, by law, it can't be murder if the thing being killed was not a person.

(If anyone has more up-to-date information about the current status of fetus-as-person-with-rights laws, please let me know. This is a topic I'm very interested in, and I'd hate to be unknowingly out of date. Thanks!)

[AirborneAli]

AA, you're making the assumption that everyone believes that this fetus was actually a person.

No, actually I'm just making the assumption that I believe the fetus was a person.

[Sammy Sandbag]

Do we begin to prosecute scientologists for praying that their children get better, rather than taking them to a doctor?

Christian Science not Scientology. Get your cults straight before you start using them in analogies.

[Zirkowitz]

Christian Science not Scientology. Get your cults straight before you start using them in analogies.

ah, snap. i know you didnt

[She-ra]

Christian Science not Scientology. Get your cults straight before you start using them in analogies.

meh, one of those. Both are equally retarded.

[Associate289]

she shouldnt be charged with murder, she should be dragged out to the street and shot... and this "surgery" that she didnt have is a simple fucking procedure... youd have a greater chance of dying getting your tonsils out... she has a responsibility to that child, and yes it was alive... hang her from the nearest yard arm

[Sammy Sandbag]

C-section a simple procedure?? Not too sure you know what is involved with it.

[TheChick]

I'm kind of curious to know if there were outside factors that we don't know about. Is she one of those Christian Science/Scientologist/whatever types? Did she have any other medical conditions that she feared might have complicated the procedure? While this doesnt justify what she did or didn't do, it might add some insight as to the WHY? of it all.

[Gambit]

Holy shit... I go away for the weekend, and THIS comes up? This topic is so heavy I'm not quite sure what to do with it. So, I'll just make a few high-level points, from my opinion:

1. I'm in favor of forced sterility in certain cases, for example druggies or people proven to have no care for their offspring (especially since I think now you can reverse some of the surgeries). I think this is one of the cases where it's necessary. Of course, you'd probably also have to sterilize anyone who would have screwed her in the first place...

2. Personally, I believe that as soon as something is growing, it's alive. Which means conception. I also think that I don't want to deal with that question outside of my own relationship. Either way, I think that this is an interesting way to address the abortion question... if she's guilty, that's basically an OK to the anti-abortion crazies that stand around with pictures of dead fetuses on signs. I hate those pricks.

3. I think part of the discussion needs to revolve around how far medicine has come (gone?). Whether or not you agree with Darwin, I think it's easy to see that part of our overpopulation/pollution/etc. partially are because people are living longer. A different question totally, but where do you draw the line between when a person is taking more resources out of life than they are giving? To tie it back in, part of the problem here is that doctors have gotten so good that they can now tell someone whether or not their kid will die based on the procedures the do or do not choose. But should that really affect your choices? Abortion was just the first/easiest question to attack, you guys have brought up plenty of valid points.

End of the story... I think that this is an interesting case, but it falls squarely under the fist/face theory... swing your fist around as much as you want, but hit me in the face and we've got a problem. Follow on, though... who got hurt here? The dead kid. So in order to find her guilty, it's got to be OK to litigate on behalf of what was then an unborn child. She-Ra made the point that I think will decide the case... legally, the fetus is not a human and therefore can't be defended.

I still think that lady should be shot, though.

[Sammy Sandbag]

I'm kind of curious to know if there were outside factors that we don't know about. Is she one of those Christian Science/Scientologist/whatever types? Did she have any other medical conditions that she feared might have complicated the procedure? While this doesnt justify what she did or didn't do, it might add some insight as to the WHY? of it all.

No she is a 350 pound crack head who didn't want a scar to ruin her sex life. The funny thing is that she had already had a c-section for a previous child and had to undergo the op for the dead fetus to be removed anyways. She was also convicted 4 years earlier for punching her daughter in the face. Basically she's your typical scum of the earth piece of shit.

[Sammy Sandbag]

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03142004/utah/147640.asp

More interesting revelations. Turns out she is a coke head and alcholic. Who would've guessed?

[TheChick]

Well in that case, I'll agree with a number of the rest, take her out back and shoot her in the head.

I have no patience whatsoever for junkies anyway.

[TheTokenGook]

Holy shit... I go away for the weekend, and THIS comes up? This topic is so heavy I'm not quite sure what to do with it.
.

[Holt]

meh

[Zirkowitz]

.

way to add to the topic.

[Holt]

.

way to add to the topic.

Just like that adds to it? :D

[Zirkowitz]

see, i knew you would understand.

[PvtTurtle-with-a-Helmet]

The one thing i gotta say is, why are we placing such a high value on human life? I mean, sure the fetus could survive on its own and all, but do we really want a hideous man beast like that reproducing more than we can fucking stop? And really, who cares if she or any of her half monkey litter survives?

On another note... even if she was doing it for purely cosmetic reasons, this bitch can use all the help she can get.

[Zirkowitz]

If HE gets to have an uninformed opinion, I'M gonna damn well have one too!.

i think your signature says it all.

[Associate289]

The one thing i gotta say is, why are we placing such a high value on human life?

yeah seriously... that shit grows on trees... its not like we cant replicate it in a lab

[TheTokenGook]

way to add to the topic.Just too serious of a topic for me

[She-ra]

^^^Way to shit on my thread, boys.

Anyway, its not like they can say "oh, well, you're ugly so your life is less valuable than someone beautiful's." She has to be allowed the same rights (such as the one to breed) as someone who doesn't look like a deranged monkey.