http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040311181909990003
Quote:
Woman Charged With Murder of Unborn Child
By ALEXANDRIA SAGE, AP
SALT LAKE CITY (March 12) - A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin has denied the charge, saying she already had scars from earlier C-sections.
Her attorney, meanwhile, said she had a long history of mental illness.
Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged Thursday of showing ''depraved indifference to human life,'' ignoring medical advice to deliver her twins by C-section because she didn't want to be scarred. One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather ''lose one of the babies than be cut like that.''
Rowland told Salt Lake City radio station KSL from jail that ''I already have a pretty nasty scar, it doesn't matter at all now,'' The Salt Lake Tribune reported.
Her attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told the Tribune ''it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it.''
The documents allege that 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, the twin girl survived but the boy died.
Shortly afterward, Rowland was jailed on a child endangerment charge involving the surviving twin, who has been adopted by a family Rowland knows.
Rowland told the radio station she has two other children who live with their grandparents in Virginia. Sikora said Rowland moved to Utah with a boyfriend and is either divorced or estranged from her husband. She lives in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan.
A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, had said earlier that Rowland was married.
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.
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.
''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.
03-12-04 1155EST
Man...
Under these particular circumstances, I definitely believe that what she did was wrong. If a c-section was the only way to save her kid, and she wouldn't do it just because she thought it would ruin her figure, she definitely made the wrong choice, mental illness or no. And if what the nurse said is true, that she actually did say she'd rather lose a baby than have a c-section, that makes it even worse.
well
the fact of turning down a c-section cause of a scar is a statement with no logical backing. a self centered move that started with the selfish act of having children.
and the idea of a murder change is completely doltish and hammerheaded. the thing was never living. it never walked, spoke, learned, loved. The woman had the complete righ to make that decision.
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
and the idea of a murder change is completely doltish and hammerheaded. the thing was never living. it never walked, spoke, learned, loved. The woman had the complete righ to make that decision.
Exactly.
I don't care if the bitch has been carrying the goddamned thing for 10 months, until it's been spit out, it ain't a person. And if the child couldn't survive to be born, oh well.
We should not mourn every ejaculation, every mass of cells. And until it was born, that's what it was... a mass of cells. However, it wasn't strong enough to become anything more than a mass of cells, so it's a moot fucking point. Do we arrest people for destroying cancer? Cancer is a mass of cells that keeps growing, but no one mourns it's death. Cancer is seen as a parasite, a disease... and isn't that just what an unborn fetus is? it cannot survive without it's host body... cannot survive on it's own. Sounds like a fucking parasite to me.
And if it had been born, it would've still become a parasite.
So good fucking riddance.
Not EXACTLY my reasoning, but I agree with the conclusion.
I usually take things to their logically insane conclusion.
Cancer cells don't emit brainwaves, though. A 10 month old unborn baby does.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Cancer cells don't emit brainwaves, though. A 10 month old unborn baby does.
Well if it's so goddamned smart, it would figure out a way to not get aborted!
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
well
the fact of turning down a c-section cause of a scar is a statement with no logical backing. a self centered move that started with the selfish act of having children.
and the idea of a murder change is completely doltish and hammerheaded. the thing was never living. it never walked, spoke, learned, loved. The woman had the complete righ to make that decision.
I second that.
However, there are some problems with that.
I don't know if any of you have seen the show "The Practice"
I know, I know, what the fuck does a show about attornies have to do with this?
well, there was this one episode where a woman was charged with the murder of her husband. She said it was self defense, cuz she was protecting her unborn baby from a violent man.
the prosecuter argued that she couldn't protect something that wasn't really a human at the time of the murder.
But had the man hit her in the stomach he would have been charged with murder.
conclusion: Even though it still isn't a human, it's still murder.
which of course is absolutely bullshit
I say if its heart beats and its brain works, it's alive.
escuse me
just because its heart beats and its brain is active doesn't mean it can pass a bill or ride a bike.
With any luck the case against the woman won't hold up in court. This is going to set a very unpleasant precedent if she does get sent down for it.
There are a lot of Mormons in Salt Lake City, are there not? Might this be a fundamentalist cretin powertrip to some extent?
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
escuse me
just because its heart beats and its brain is active doesn't mean it can pass a bill or ride a bike.
....neither can a 2 year old. Are they not alive, either?
they have skills unlike a sack of cells
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they have skills unlike a sack of cells
exactly
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they have skills unlike a sack of cells
Because they've been given the time to learn them.
You're a "sack of cells" too. Merely a well-learned one.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they have skills unlike a sack of cells
Because they've been given the time to learn them.
You're a "sack of cells" too. Merely a well-learned one.
I don't know, if we were to use arguments as broad as you two are using, we might as well be arguing if NOT ejaculating your seed into a vagina would be considered murder.
At that far along in development, it is, without a doubt, life. The baby was a learning, thinking being. A "Woman's Right to Choose" is a bullshit arguement, especially here. She chose to have sex, an act that every 28 year-old knows can lead to pregnancy. And if it comes down to her being so self serving as to not want a scar to save the life/lives of her own children, then that is depraved indifference to life. It's the same as not trying to save someone from drowning because you don't want to get your feet wet.
As far as this "it's only a mass of cell" crap that some of you are spilling out, as Animalman said, so were you at one point. When everyone of you came into this world, all you could do was eat, cry, piss, and shit. Maybe you should have been thrown in a dumpster to see if you could crawl out of it and forage for your own food. After all, if you can't survive on your own then what good are you, right?
And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am only using the logic that has been put out in the opposing arguements here to show the faults in them. I, unlike some on this board, wish no malice against anyone.
Quote:
Pariah said:
I don't know, if we were to use arguments as broad as you two are using, we might as well be arguing if NOT ejaculating your seed into a vagina would be considered murder.
No, it wouldn't, because again, a wad of semen doesn't have a heart that beats and a brain that thinks.
I'm all for a women's right to have an abortion....but I think there has to be a cutoff point, and in my mind this woman had long since passed it.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they have skills unlike a sack of cells
Because they've been given the time to learn them.
You're a "sack of cells" too. Merely a well-learned one.
yes we are a sack of cells but we are developed. This unborn child is not developed, thus it cannot be considered a person. We are fully developed yet the fetus is not. You cannot be charged with murder unless you kill developed human being. This fetus is not nearly as developed as a born child. You can only consider this sac of cells a person when uve "given it time to learn"
Quote:
thedoctor said:
At that far along in development, it is, without a doubt, life. The baby was a learning, thinking being. A "Woman's Right to Choose" is a bullshit arguement, especially here. She chose to have sex, an act that every 28 year-old knows can lead to pregnancy
What about rape???
Quote:
winged creature said:
yes we are a sack of cells but we are developed. This unborn child is not developed, thus it cannot be considered a person. We are fully developed yet the fetus is not. You cannot be charged with murder unless you kill developed human being. This fetus is not nearly as developed as a born child. You can only consider this sac of cells a person when uve "given it time to learn"
WTF? 
They were ready to come out. The doctor didn't tell her that the babies needed to come out and go onto life support to survive. They were fully developed. All the doctor would have done is removed the babies, cut the cord, slapped their tushes, and handed them to thier mother.
Babies are usually fully developed when they enter the 3rd trimester. They are just tiny. The 3rd trimester is when they add weight. That's usually all they do in the 3rd trimester is add weight. That's when they go from a couple of pounds to a healthy birth weight of 6-9 lbs.
So, they are actually alive at the end of the 2nd trimester.
Quote:
winged creature said:
What about rape???
First off, that's not even an issue here. There was nothing in that article that leads to any assumption that she was raped. This is a case of a mother putting her own physical appearance (not well-being, mind you) above the life of both of her children, though one did survive.
Secondly, on a personal stance, I'm not 100% decided on the rape victim stance. But I do side with her right to abort because she did not have a choice on the conception. But, then again, a rape vitcim won't wait until near the end of the third trimester, after the baby is fully formed and developed, to have an abortion either. That's a decision made very close to conception.
Quote:
winged creature said:
yes we are a sack of cells but we are developed. This unborn child is not developed, thus it cannot be considered a person.
What's your definition of "developed"?
Most babies are developed enough to be born around the start of the 3rd and final stage.
Quote:
We are fully developed yet the fetus is not.
Most newborn babies aren't "fully" developed yet. Their lungs and braintissue are still developing even days after the birthing procedure. This is why they're kept in the hospital.
Quote:
You can only consider this sac of cells a person when uve "given it time to learn"
They sure look like people to me....
Animalman, we need to stop agreeing like this. It's scaring me.
Quote:
PenWing said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
yes we are a sack of cells but we are developed. This unborn child is not developed, thus it cannot be considered a person. We are fully developed yet the fetus is not. You cannot be charged with murder unless you kill developed human being. This fetus is not nearly as developed as a born child. You can only consider this sac of cells a person when uve "given it time to learn"
WTF?
They were ready to come out. The doctor didn't tell her that the babies needed to come out and go onto life support to survive. They were fully developed. All the doctor would have done is removed the babies, cut the cord, slapped their tushes, and handed them to thier mother.
Babies are usually fully developed when they enter the 3rd trimester. They are just tiny. The 3rd trimester is when they add weight. That's usually all they do in the 3rd trimester is add weight. That's when they go from a couple of pounds to a healthy birth weight of 6-9 lbs.
So, they are actually alive at the end of the 2nd trimester.
yes, but statistically survival under a certain weight is rare.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
Most babies are developed enough to be born around the start of the 3rd and final stage
Sure developed enough to born??? I think not they would not survive. Only medical technology allows them to survive and thats not 100%. So essentially there not ready for that stage thus they are still a underdeveloped sac of cells.
Quote:
winged creature said:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
Most babies are developed enough to be born around the start of the 3rd and final stage
Sure developed enough to born??? I think not they would not survive. Only medical technology allows them to survive and thats not 100%. So essentially there not ready for that stage thus they are still a underdeveloped sac of cells.
well, unless your working at the hand of god the chances are very minimual. and at that point why let it suffer. if you have to plug it into things and let it sit in a veggie state not being able to do or understand a thing.
Nice 180 there. It can't learn or understand; but it can suffer, huh?
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Nice 180 there. It can't learn or understand; but it can suffer, huh?
excuse me, doc, sweety, boby, baby, I'm all for pulling the plug and the whole DNR thing.
To put it blantly it should be the womans choice, she is carrying it. Until it is born it not capable to be a functioning person, since it cannot survive with out its mother.
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes, but statistically survival under a certain weight is rare.
I'm not sure I see what that has to do with anything. Statistically your chances of surviving Aids are low, should we just kill anyone who contracts it because they might not live?
Quote:
winged creature said:
Sure developed enough to born??? I think not they would not survive. Only medical technology allows them to survive and thats not 100%.
No, not "only". Some would die, yes, perhaps even a lot, but not all.
And again, this is a silly argument, because the fact is that they're alive. They breathe, they begin to think, they feel pain. Technology helps, of course, but penalizing them for that is absurd. Could they die? Sure! Anyone of us could die at any moment, even you! That doesn't give me the right to kill you, since I'd only be delaying the inevitable.
Should Siamese Twins be killed because, technically, they're not "fully developed"? What about Down Syndrome cases? What about Schizophrenics that can't cope without taking relaxing drugs? They need technology to survive, too, most of the time.
I'm tempted to say that this is "survival of the fittest" to the extreme, but it's not really even that, because by your standards, nobody would be fit enough. Even Sparta would have found this line of thinking strange.
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
well, unless your working at the hand of god the chances are very minimual. and at that point why let it suffer. if you have to plug it into things and let it sit in a veggie state not being able to do or understand a thing.
Now we're crossing over into entirely different territory. Euthanasia is a seperate matter. You're talking about not even letting it get to the point of pulling the plug, you're not even giving them that chance.
Quote:
winged creature said:
To put it blantly it should be the womans choice, she is carrying it. Until it is born it not capable to be a functioning person, since it cannot survive with out its mother.
1.There's a certain point when it can be born, and the woman in question here was well past it.
2.Can a child survive without it's mother(or a mother-figure) anyway?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
To put it blantly it should be the womans choice, she is carrying it. Until it is born it not capable to be a functioning person, since it cannot survive with out its mother.
1.There's a certain point when it can be born, and the woman in question here was well past it.
2.Can a child survive without it's mother(or a mother-figure) anyway?
Im talking about the fetus in the mothers womb, that cannot survive without the mother. If it cannot survive on its own then it is not a person just an underveloped sac of cells.
I'm temped to pull up all the shit I learned in Growth and Repro, but I'm too tired now.
In this case, this woman put her appearence before the child's life. If her life was in danger, this would be a totally different matter.
Quote:
winged creature said:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
To put it blantly it should be the womans choice, she is carrying it. Until it is born it not capable to be a functioning person, since it cannot survive with out its mother.
1.There's a certain point when it can be born, and the woman in question here was well past it.
2.Can a child survive without it's mother(or a mother-figure) anyway?
Im talking about the fetus in the mothers womb, that cannot survive without the mother. If it cannot survive on its own then it is not a person just an underveloped sac of cells.
yes, the fetus cannot survive in the enviorment outside the womb being a sac of cells.
Quote:
winged creature said:
If it cannot survive on its own then it is not a person just an underveloped sac of cells.
Then Christopher Reeves has been an unperson for years.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
winged creature said:
If it cannot survive on its own then it is not a person just an underveloped sac of cells.
Then Christopher Reeves has been an unperson for years.
ah but u see he has developed, and has the ability to reason intelligently, so making him an example is just stupid
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Nice 180 there. It can't learn or understand; but it can suffer, huh?
excuse me, doc, sweety, boby, baby, I'm all for pulling the plug and the whole DNR thing.
I just had to mention the whole flip-flop from an unborn baby just being a mass of cells to you not wanting one to "suffer". The fact that you consider it able to suffer hurts your arguement that it is unable to "love and understand".
Quote:
winged creature said:
m talking about the fetus in the mothers womb, that cannot survive without the mother. If it cannot survive on its own then it is not a person just an underveloped sac of cells.
It also cannot function without its mother after birth. Does that mean that it is still unable to be a functioning person?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes, but statistically survival under a certain weight is rare.
I'm not sure I see what that has to do with anything. Statistically your chances of surviving Aids are low, should we just kill anyone who contracts it because they might not live?
.
they chose to take that risk with intravenus drugs and sex.
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes, the fetus cannot survive in the enviorment outside the womb being a sac of cells.
Actually, that's not correct. The term "fetus" is used to describe the unborn child from the 8th week until birth. So, there is a point at which a fetus is fully capable of surviving(in the sense that it can breathe and move normally) outside the womb.
Yes it may not be able to survive with out its mother, but its organs can function well, all it needs is a caregiver. The fetus needs its mother to live and sustain life while its the womb, all is not properly developed.
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they chose to take that risk with intravenus drugs and sex.
That's not the only way you can contract Aids.
Arthur Ashe contracted it from a blood transfusion, a perfectly normal medical procedure.
Quote:
winged creature said:
Yes it may not be able to survive with out its mother, but its organs can function well, all it needs is a caregiver. The fetus needs its mother to live and sustain life while its the womb, all is not properly developed.
See above post.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes, the fetus cannot survive in the enviorment outside the womb being a sac of cells.
Actually, that's not correct. The term "fetus" is used to describe the unborn child from the 8th week until birth. So, there is a point at which a fetus is fully capable of surviving(in the sense that it can breathe and move normally) outside the womb.
lets put this in medical terms. When a child is born prematurely its not fully developed, it needs to be in the womb to survive or medical equipment. Thus it is not fully developed. If it didnt need this sort of assistance then it would be developed.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
they chose to take that risk with intravenus drugs and sex.
That's not the only way you can contract Aids.
Arthur Ashe contracted it from a blood transfusion, a perfectly normal medical procedure.
yes so did ryan white, but in a statistical manner the top ways in order are: sex, intravenus drugs, blood transfusion and from mother to child
plus testing has imporved on blood donations and transfusions sice the 80's
But, yet, the brain is developed. Does that mean that fully grown people who need assistance with dialysis and such should just be left to die as well?
Quote:
thedoctor said:
But, yet, the brain is developed. Does that mean that fully grown people who need assistance with dialysis and such should just be left to die as well?
well you tell me, would you rather die from the cure or teh disease?
Quote:
Cowgirl Jack said:
I'm temped to pull up all the shit I learned in Growth and Repro, but I'm too tired now.
In this case, this woman put her appearence before the child's life. If her life was in danger, this would be a totally different matter.
Short, sweet, and to the point. Thank you, CJ.
Let's get a couple things straight here. First of all, this isn't an abortion case. The abortion issue is a whole can of worms that I don't really want to get into here. This wasn't a "sac of cells". It was a baby, ready for delivery. The fact of the matter is that the woman was told that at least one of those babies was going to die if she didn't get a c-section. And she decided because 1) of cosmetic reasons; and/or 2) because she has a history of mental illness, to not have the c-section. Thus the baby died. Therefore the question is not "When is a baby not a baby?" or "Is abortion murder?" or "What is the cut-off for when a fetus can be aborted?" The question is "Did this woman, by refusing to act upon the advice of her doctor, have a hand (and, thus, responsibility) for the death of her child?" If the answer is "yes", then the next question is "Was this woman of sound mind when she made the decision, or is she insane?"
Based on the facts of the article, which doesn't seem to be too well written as it rambles and hops from point-to-point (or maybe I'm tired and read it wrong), it would seem TO ME that the woman DID ignore the advice of her doctor, for purely selfish reasons. Thus she DOES (at least) share in the responsibility for the baby's death. Now, whether or not she acted of her own rational volition or is a whack-job is what's in question.
Somehow I have the feeling that this will go trial and she'll plead insanity to avoid whatever the severe penalty is...
Well, the people I know on dialysis are greatful for the procedure and the chance at longer life that it gives them, if their voices have any say in the matter.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Well, the people I know on dialysis are greatful for the procedure and the chance at longer life that it gives them, if their voices have any say in the matter.
they have the ability to reason, an unborn sac of cells doesnt
Quote:
winged creature said:
When a child is born prematurely its not fully developed
It's not "fully" developed even if it isn't born prematurely, and either way, in some cases, it can breathe without the use of medical equipment.
Quote:
If it didnt need this sort of assistance then it would be developed.
But now you've switched from "fully developed" to "developed". There's a lot of ambiguity here. Again, "doesn't need equipment' isn't the same thing as "fully developed".
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes so did ryan white, but in a statistical manner the top ways in order are: sex, intravenus drugs, blood transfusion and from mother to child
plus testing has imporved on blood donations and transfusions sice the 80's
So? That's beside the point!
You're condemning everyone based on the majority. It doesn't matter if "rates are lower" or "percentages are higher", you're basically saying that anyone who contracts Aids is just reaping what they've sown.
Quote:
winged creature said:
they have the ability to reason, an unborn sac of cells doesnt
Wouldn't that just further my argument that it's wrong to deny them a choice just because they were never given the chance to make in the first place?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
sneaky bunny said:
yes so did ryan white, but in a statistical manner the top ways in order are: sex, intravenus drugs, blood transfusion and from mother to child
plus testing has imporved on blood donations and transfusions sice the 80's
So? That's beside the point!
you brought the fucking point
but if you wanna suffer with slim disease, kaposis sarcoma, and 2 years of the liquid shits feel free.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
I don't know, if we were to use arguments as broad as you two are using, we might as well be arguing if NOT ejaculating your seed into a vagina would be considered murder.
No, it wouldn't, because again, a wad of semen doesn't have a heart that beats and a brain that thinks.
What I meant was that a wad of semen is also a bag of cells in development.
Quote:
I'm all for a women's right to have an abortion....but I think there has to be a cutoff point, and in my mind this woman had long since passed it.
OT Question: What would you think if this person merely wanted to have the baby without using C-section because she was paranoid and felt it would do more harm than good? If she thought it would be better for the baby that she have it on her own.
That's fine. I just don't think she has the right to avoid taking responsibility for it even when she was well into pregnancy, then say she'd rather not have the scar.
I get your point about a wad of cells in development. I just think that there is a certain point where that wad of cells actually begins to function like a human being, and at that point it becomes murder to abort it.
i agree with animalman. god i cant believe i typed that.
Quote:
Animalman said:
That's fine. I just don't think she has the right to avoid taking responsibility for it even when she was well into pregnancy, then say she'd rather not have the scar.
I get your point about a wad of cells in development. I just think that there is a certain point where that wad of cells actually begins to function like a human being, and at that point it becomes murder to abort it.
Okay, gotcha.
