Melissa Ann Rowland - Thoughts? (Pro-Life/Anti-Life *ahem* Pro-Choice Stuff) ;)

[Amorphus]

Backstory - Melissa Ann Rowland is a Utah mother (now of three, I think), who was laden with twins. She delivered the girl successfully, but the boy would not pop out. Doctors warned her that without a C-section, the baby would die. She refused/declined/avoided the procedure, and her baby ended up dead.

Now, she's being charged with first-degree manslaughter (at least, to my knowledge, although reckless disregard of human life is a charge now).

National Organization for Women is calling this an attempt to elevate the rights of the fetus above those of the mother (pff).


Now, I'm pro-life to begin with, but it's pretty easy to see that the outcome of this case will be a giant factor in determining rights of fetus, definition of when life begins, etc. - the extenuation to Roe vs. Wade, in effect.

Thoughts?


*edited title to lure in some unsuspecting pundit-hopefuls.

 

[Turin39789]

fscking politics

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

WTF? She didn't want a C-section? It meant saving the baby. Why in the hell didn't she want it? Bah... prosecute the bitch.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This prosecution is a joke. I can't believe any jurisdiction in the United States is moving to prosecute someone for denying risky surgery. This sounds more like a case the Taliban would take to court.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
This prosecution is a joke. I can't believe any jurisdiction in the United States is moving to prosecute someone for denying risky surgery. This sounds more like a case the Taliban would take to court.

Apparently, from first-hand accounts, Ms. Rowland delayed the surgery because she didn't want a scar. Nowadays she's saying it was for "medical concerns".

btw - this is risky surgery to save a life. plus, the "risk" is just some discomfort for a time.



Also, Ms. Rowland has also had a bad rap concerning taking care of her children before.
-Cocaine and Alcohol was found in the girl twin's system
-Punched her then 2-yo daughter in the face in a supermarket for eating an unpaid for candy bar (found guilty of child endangerment in a court of law - ergo, it wasn't no light punch, BOI)

According to Brian Farley, a California man, in a series of collect calls between Feb 26 and Merch 2 Ms. Rowland promised to allow Mr. Farley and his wife to adopt her son in exchange for $5,000 in bail money. Mr. Farley said Ms. Rowland never mentioned that the baby was already dead."

Old news, but I thought it discussionworthy.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second, though. If Ms. Rowland is found guilty of manslaughter or homicide or whatever, it will set "dangerous (

)" precedence that a baby in utero is protected under the law.

Mind you, I think she should be slammed.

 

[bradruth]

I'm pro-life as well, and I think what she did was horrible, but it's hard to find a way to criminally prosecute her for denying a surgery. Abortion is different in that the intent is to terminate the fetus, but that intent isn't entirely clear here.

 

[shimsham]

shes a nut, and i see no problem removing her from the gene pool entirely.

 

[Deeko]

Your thread title is just asking for a fight.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
This prosecution is a joke. I can't believe any jurisdiction in the United States is moving to prosecute someone for denying risky surgery. This sounds more like a case the Taliban would take to court.

C-sections are done every day. What's so risky about it? The percentage of dying directly due to having a c-section is ridiculously low.

 

[abaez]

There is still a risk and it's not up to anyone to decide but the person it's being performed on.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: abaez
There is still a risk and it's not up to anyone to decide but the person it's being performed on.

Ahh, but isn't refusal to perform the same as a late term abortion?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
C-sections are done every day. What's so risky about it? The percentage of dying directly due to having a c-section is ridiculously low.

The degree of risk isn't the issue, at least to me. The point is that the law has no business compelling people to have operations. The idea that it could be a crime not to have one is absurd. As it happens, this woman has a significant history of mental illness, which just makes matters worse IMO.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Your thread title is just asking for a fight.

Yeah - the equivalency to third-trimester abortion thing is what struck me about this case. In any case, if she's prosecuted for homicide/manslaughter (dunno which charge they're bringing against her), then at least a baby will be protected a little bit more. It should be pretty easy for the jury to prosecute her, but there's going to be plenty of badmouthing going on.

Come on, no flamers?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
C-sections are done every day. What's so risky about it? The percentage of dying directly due to having a c-section is ridiculously low.

The degree of risk isn't the issue, at least to me. The point is that the law has no business compelling people to have operations. The idea that it could be a crime not to have one is absurd. As it happens, this woman has a significant history of mental illness, which just makes matters worse IMO.

With the way she's treated her previous children and the decision that she made with this pregnancy, the law should superglue a fvcking cork in there. :| Jesus... it's people like this who don't deserve the honor of raising children. Children deserve a mother much better than that bitch.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
With the way she's treated her previous children and the decision that she made with this pregnancy, the law should superglue a fvcking cork in there. :| Jesus... it's people like this who don't deserve the honor of raising children. Children deserve a mother much better than that bitch.

That might be true (well, at least the fact that children deserve better parenting), but the bottom line is that the law does not require licensing for parents (a fact whose negative impact would, IMO, be exacerbated by a ban on abortion, bringing this argument full-circle).

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Here in OR, you get three chances at not attacking people. Three assault charges and you're in jail for life. Parenting should be the same way. Have a kid and fvck yourself over on alcohol and cocaine, you shouldn't be alowed to have kids in that kind of atmosphere. Do it enough times and maybe the state should require a significant amount of time before you're allowed to keep your kids.

Bah... that's outrageous, I know. But still. Grr...