tony detroit
Active Member
I was just watching the ten o'clock news and the put up a picture of the mom, wow. Alright everybody be happy, the gene pool does not need anymore females that look like that.
birdy
Active Member
I did not read everyones responses yet I thought I would just put my own opinion in first.
As a mother of twins I think I have some insight on a twin pregnancy and delivery, it is VASTLY different than a singleton pregnancy and delivery. For one, twin pregnancies almost always delivery early, 38wks is considered term for twins. Most deliver in the 32-36wk stage. A baby can be viable from 24wks gestation on (although it is very very risky) after about 32 wks the baby's almost always survive. This mother in my opinion Killed that child, when you are pregnant with twins, they tell you right away that you have a 50% chance of delivering by c-section. In the case of this once the baby was considered in distress they need to get it out ASAP, going through a natural birth would have been too risky. I think that personally they should have gotten a court order and done the c-section against her will, in this case an innocent child's right to life should have been taken over her drugged out alcholic mother. Frankly I hope she rots in prison and I think she should be sterilized, IT MAKES ME SICK to think of what she did.
lovethesea- my heart goes out to your sister in law, I know several twin mom's who have lost a twin, and I cannot imagine the heart ache.
I spent 4months on bedrest to save my twins lives and I had a c-section and there is the tiniest of scars, and the recovery was not even that bad, after two weeks I was walking around the block.
As a mother of twins I think I have some insight on a twin pregnancy and delivery, it is VASTLY different than a singleton pregnancy and delivery. For one, twin pregnancies almost always delivery early, 38wks is considered term for twins. Most deliver in the 32-36wk stage. A baby can be viable from 24wks gestation on (although it is very very risky) after about 32 wks the baby's almost always survive. This mother in my opinion Killed that child, when you are pregnant with twins, they tell you right away that you have a 50% chance of delivering by c-section. In the case of this once the baby was considered in distress they need to get it out ASAP, going through a natural birth would have been too risky. I think that personally they should have gotten a court order and done the c-section against her will, in this case an innocent child's right to life should have been taken over her drugged out alcholic mother. Frankly I hope she rots in prison and I think she should be sterilized, IT MAKES ME SICK to think of what she did.
lovethesea- my heart goes out to your sister in law, I know several twin mom's who have lost a twin, and I cannot imagine the heart ache.
I spent 4months on bedrest to save my twins lives and I had a c-section and there is the tiniest of scars, and the recovery was not even that bad, after two weeks I was walking around the block.
tony detroit
Active Member
Not saying what she did is what I would have done, but it is her choice IMO and none of my, your, or the government's business.
birdy
Active Member
I totally disagree, they do operations all the time on people, by saying that they are not mentally able to make the descision. how is this different, she was mentally unstable. Of course I believe in the rights of a child and think abortion is murder, but other than that, she obviously was concerned about the twins, she went to several hospitals to see if they were okay. Her mental state should have put her in a position to have had the c-section done against her will.
tony detroit
Active Member
Having a natural birth should not be a bad thing....period. (by no means am I endorsing what she did) Mentally stable or not, natural birth cannot be a wrong thing to do. What religion are you?
tony detroit
Active Member
Originally posted by Birdy
Her mental state should have put her in a position to have had the c-section done against her will.
Disagree. You think it is a good thing that your government can make decisions for you?
birdy
Active Member
Not because she was mentally ill, but because she had the descision to save a life and she chose to kill a baby, perhaps my words were a bit strong, but the thought of that poor baby dying needlessly just brought me to tears. All because of some vanity. I think that a court order should have been issued if she was mentally incompetent. I am a firm believer in a childs rights so to me it is just like murder and I think a murderer should go to jail for life whether they were mental competent or not.
birdy
Active Member
Tony- I am a born again Christian, It is not that I want my government making descisions for me, but sometimes I do think it is necessary, if I was in a car accident and I had a brain injury and I couldn't make a proper descision for my care I would hope someone would do that for me. I think it is the same situation here. She could not mentally make the proper descision to save the life of her child.
A natural childbirth would have killed her child, more than likely one of the babies was breech (that may come out later) this could be one of the many reasons she needed a c-section. If multiple drs' said she must have a c-section then there was probably no possiblity for a favorable outcome with natural childbirth.
If natural childbirth was possible then of course this is the best way to go, but with twins that possiblity is narrow. There are a lot of unknowns with this story, but it all boils down to if you believe in the rights of an unborn child.
A natural childbirth would have killed her child, more than likely one of the babies was breech (that may come out later) this could be one of the many reasons she needed a c-section. If multiple drs' said she must have a c-section then there was probably no possiblity for a favorable outcome with natural childbirth.
If natural childbirth was possible then of course this is the best way to go, but with twins that possiblity is narrow. There are a lot of unknowns with this story, but it all boils down to if you believe in the rights of an unborn child.
lovethesea
Active Member
I still feel she did not want these children. The child born alive tested postive for drugs and alcohol. She may have just been hoping they died before she delivered. It will be interesting to see what comes of this and the other children she has that someone else has been caring for, for a few years.
birdy
Active Member
I was reading through my posts and I would like to apologize if I offended anyone, I came off a bit stronger than I meant to. I think this subject is just too close to me for me to be open minded. I like a good debate any day, but I am just too emotional about this ( I have been in tears over this more than once this week). I think only a mother (especially a mother of twins) can truly understand what it is like to carry those babies and most sane mothers would give their own life just to see those babies born healthy ( I would anyway) So it is unfathomable to me that she chose to let her baby die, over what is actually a fairly simple medical procedure. No I do not want our Government dictating everything in our lives, but I do believe it is there to help those who cannot help themselves and that includes mentally incompetent people and babies. A better end to this story would have been a mandated c-section and mental evaluation and hopefully help, and two healthy twin babies, adopted to a parent who desperately wants a child. I do think the mother should spend some time in prison and definelty get a mental exam and help.
Take care,
Carla
Take care,
Carla
ronipa
Member
This is a hard thing for me to wrap my brain around. I am a member of the medical field and I make life or death decisions for people everyday. I do feel the mother was WAY wrong and should "own" her part in this tragedy.
I also feel as if her physician had an obligation to follow-up on her refusal for a C-section and to even contact social services. In some instances, we do have an obligation to report blatant neglect or endangerment of the unborn fetus and I feel this COULD has classified as such.
As a woman though, I feel her decision was just that.... hers to make.
I am still disgusted by the whole thing and am not sure exactly where I stand on it.......
Thanks for bringing it to my attention though (I work 14-18 hours a day and haven't seen this in the news)
Roni
I also feel as if her physician had an obligation to follow-up on her refusal for a C-section and to even contact social services. In some instances, we do have an obligation to report blatant neglect or endangerment of the unborn fetus and I feel this COULD has classified as such.
As a woman though, I feel her decision was just that.... hers to make.
I am still disgusted by the whole thing and am not sure exactly where I stand on it.......
Thanks for bringing it to my attention though (I work 14-18 hours a day and haven't seen this in the news)
Roni
sammystingray
Active Member
Suicide is against the law......makes sense huh? But anyway, with the thinking some have, we should be FORCED by law to take any medication we are told to by a doctor......because if we refuse, then we are risking our own lives and it may be considered attempted murder??
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
If my fiance, and I don't have any idea why she would, should say she refuses a C-section...........if I could not persuade her otherwise, then I would stand in front of her and dare any man to cut her against her will.
I could bash on religion and the contradictions involved when it comes to science and medicine, but it's just too easy. It drives me nuts always seeing religion involved in every debate here.........when I hold back on my beliefs........which actually are consistent.
In my opinion, this whole thing isn't about this one lady who doesn't deserve a child to begin with, it's about people telling you.......no, FORCING you by law, to do what they think you should with your body......
I am more of a sheep everyday, and so are all of you.....your choices in life diminish daily. Freedom my ^%$.
wrassecal.....of course I am not mad.....I like to debate as well. XOXOXOXOX
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
If my fiance, and I don't have any idea why she would, should say she refuses a C-section...........if I could not persuade her otherwise, then I would stand in front of her and dare any man to cut her against her will.
I could bash on religion and the contradictions involved when it comes to science and medicine, but it's just too easy. It drives me nuts always seeing religion involved in every debate here.........when I hold back on my beliefs........which actually are consistent.
In my opinion, this whole thing isn't about this one lady who doesn't deserve a child to begin with, it's about people telling you.......no, FORCING you by law, to do what they think you should with your body......
I am more of a sheep everyday, and so are all of you.....your choices in life diminish daily. Freedom my ^%$.
wrassecal.....of course I am not mad.....I like to debate as well. XOXOXOXOX
D
daniel411
Guest
Originally posted by sammystingray Suicide is against the law......makes sense huh? But anyway, with the thinking some have, we should be FORCED by law to take any medication we are told to by a doctor......because if we refuse, then we are risking our own lives and it may be considered attempted murder??
We currently are forced by doctors/government to take medication and vaccines. It just depends on the circumstances.
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
There is a difference. Where she would only at worst (correct me if I'm wrong) have a potential for a scar. A person donating an organ has other more severe risks. Including his or her life being threatened.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
If its within your ability to save someones life and you just watch them die... is that murder? Just something to have you think about.
While I agree that this opens up alot of questions on the limitation of government. Which this case could easily create several precedents. Including should a woman be charged with child endangerment if they: smoke, drink, drive wrecklessly, etc. while carrying a child?
Or if someone else could be charged with the same by smoking in a public place near a woman carrying a child?
Note: these are just examples, not necessarily my personal beliefs.
Regardless of what any of us think. The prosecuting attorney thought it was murder plain and simple. It will be for the courts to decide now the governments view now.
If my fiance, and I don't have any idea why she would, should say she refuses a C-section...........if I could not persuade her otherwise, then I would stand in front of her and dare any man to cut her against her will.
As a man, I'd have the utmost respect for you standing up for what you believe in.
I could bash on religion and the contradictions involved when it comes to science and medicine, but it's just too easy. It drives me nuts always seeing religion involved in every debate here.........when I hold back on my beliefs........which actually are consistent.
I'd be willing to listen to your bash, thoughts, beliefs on the contradictions between religion and science/medicine in another format. Thread, email, etc.
Religion is involved in every decision, statement, etc. that we all make. Whether our religion is a self-discovered ways of philosophy, a heavenly father, ourselves, etc. To not have it affect our decisions, statements, etc. would be to deny who we are.
I am more of a sheep everyday, and so are all of you.....your choices in life diminish daily. Freedom my ^%$.
In complete agreement!
.....I like to debate as well.
Thats one thing that really is awesome about this board. Its members are so willing to listen, debate, question; even when they disagree. And not go into, for the most part, childish name calling, etc... like some other boards
We currently are forced by doctors/government to take medication and vaccines. It just depends on the circumstances.
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
There is a difference. Where she would only at worst (correct me if I'm wrong) have a potential for a scar. A person donating an organ has other more severe risks. Including his or her life being threatened.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
If its within your ability to save someones life and you just watch them die... is that murder? Just something to have you think about.
While I agree that this opens up alot of questions on the limitation of government. Which this case could easily create several precedents. Including should a woman be charged with child endangerment if they: smoke, drink, drive wrecklessly, etc. while carrying a child?
Or if someone else could be charged with the same by smoking in a public place near a woman carrying a child?
Note: these are just examples, not necessarily my personal beliefs.
Regardless of what any of us think. The prosecuting attorney thought it was murder plain and simple. It will be for the courts to decide now the governments view now.
If my fiance, and I don't have any idea why she would, should say she refuses a C-section...........if I could not persuade her otherwise, then I would stand in front of her and dare any man to cut her against her will.
As a man, I'd have the utmost respect for you standing up for what you believe in.
I could bash on religion and the contradictions involved when it comes to science and medicine, but it's just too easy. It drives me nuts always seeing religion involved in every debate here.........when I hold back on my beliefs........which actually are consistent.
I'd be willing to listen to your bash, thoughts, beliefs on the contradictions between religion and science/medicine in another format. Thread, email, etc.
Religion is involved in every decision, statement, etc. that we all make. Whether our religion is a self-discovered ways of philosophy, a heavenly father, ourselves, etc. To not have it affect our decisions, statements, etc. would be to deny who we are.
I am more of a sheep everyday, and so are all of you.....your choices in life diminish daily. Freedom my ^%$.
In complete agreement!
.....I like to debate as well.
Thats one thing that really is awesome about this board. Its members are so willing to listen, debate, question; even when they disagree. And not go into, for the most part, childish name calling, etc... like some other boards
birdy
Active Member
Those are very good points, both Daniel and Sammy, I don't really think religeon was brought into this discussion I was asked and I responded that was all that was said.
I personally think that once you become pregnant you are responsible for that life growing inside your body, if you drink and smoke and do drugs, and your child is born with them in it's system then they take your baby away and I believe should prosecute you for endangering the life of a child. I just don't understand how people cannot want to fight for a helpless baby, just because the mom didn't want it. Frankly who cares, she made the descision to get pregnant and she carried them to a full viable state so it was her responsibilty to make the best descision on their delivery, I think the Drs. dropped the ball also, if it was so critical she deliver then they should have detained her and either induced her then or gotten the court order to do the c-section. C-sections are relatively safe, but they do have a their share of complications, as they are major abdomnial surgery. It is tough and this is why we have our judicial system. In general our government is in our business too much, but when it comes to those who do not have a voice then yes I think we should step in.
It is very interesting to listen to this debate here and on a couple of other boards I am on, the other two boards are all mothers (one is all twin mom's) and even the very liberal mothers who are very much pro-choice, believe they should have taken the babies by c-section.
I personally think that once you become pregnant you are responsible for that life growing inside your body, if you drink and smoke and do drugs, and your child is born with them in it's system then they take your baby away and I believe should prosecute you for endangering the life of a child. I just don't understand how people cannot want to fight for a helpless baby, just because the mom didn't want it. Frankly who cares, she made the descision to get pregnant and she carried them to a full viable state so it was her responsibilty to make the best descision on their delivery, I think the Drs. dropped the ball also, if it was so critical she deliver then they should have detained her and either induced her then or gotten the court order to do the c-section. C-sections are relatively safe, but they do have a their share of complications, as they are major abdomnial surgery. It is tough and this is why we have our judicial system. In general our government is in our business too much, but when it comes to those who do not have a voice then yes I think we should step in.
It is very interesting to listen to this debate here and on a couple of other boards I am on, the other two boards are all mothers (one is all twin mom's) and even the very liberal mothers who are very much pro-choice, believe they should have taken the babies by c-section.
wrassecal
Active Member
As a woman though, I feel her decision was just that.... hers to make.
With all due respect, espcially for your chosen career, you speak for Roni, not "woman" I am a woman too, and disagree but, I speak for Debi.
I believe in the rights of a child and think abortion is murder,
Carla, I agree, especially when the unborn child is a viable human if taken from the womb. That baby should have all the rights of life that anyone else has.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
In this case, yes. The baby's rights were not protected.
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
Next thing you know, if a birth goes wrong, the mom and dad will be in prison for not taking birthing classes. Maybe the mom didn't eat enough of the right foods......she is a cold blooded killer?????? Maybe the mom allowed people to smoke around her, maybe the mom walked on the ice and KNEW it was slippery......Fry her???? It was her choice to walk on the ice, and she knew she could fall and hurt her unborn child.....should she be on death row as well? Extreme cases? yes, but I call this way too extreme as well.
Your remarks appear extreme (to me) at first glance but, is more likely theory that gives us a roadmap as to what might happen if certain laws are inacted. This type of thought of expansion is why our government is not able to take these things past the point of the society's reason. Taking a law we already have - seatbelts, we could hypothesize that if we are killed in a car accident not wearing our seatbelt then we have committed suicide or we can only drive in good weather, or daytime, or not at all because driving itself causes more deaths by auto accident. Although this example IMO was all about $$.
The right-to-life v mother's right to control her own body is a moral case. When we have a government in power that believes in the right-to-life as a society we get the laws that support that moral stance. When the other side is voted in, they work to put t he other law in effect. Most of us live in the fuzzy middle of the moral debate on this issue. As I stated earlier, I believe the rights of the father, mother and baby should be considered. Wonder why we hardly ever hear debates on the rights of prospective fathers?
With all due respect, espcially for your chosen career, you speak for Roni, not "woman" I am a woman too, and disagree but, I speak for Debi.
I believe in the rights of a child and think abortion is murder,
Carla, I agree, especially when the unborn child is a viable human if taken from the womb. That baby should have all the rights of life that anyone else has.
Like I said before, I never said I would make the choices she did, but murder? It just makes me shake my head at the whole stupid society. Should a mothers body be property of the government, and the mother has no say so?
In this case, yes. The baby's rights were not protected.
If my brother needs a kidney, and I am the only one......I refuse, he dies, then I should be guilty of murder because I would not give him one? No difference........I decided to keep my body as is.
Next thing you know, if a birth goes wrong, the mom and dad will be in prison for not taking birthing classes. Maybe the mom didn't eat enough of the right foods......she is a cold blooded killer?????? Maybe the mom allowed people to smoke around her, maybe the mom walked on the ice and KNEW it was slippery......Fry her???? It was her choice to walk on the ice, and she knew she could fall and hurt her unborn child.....should she be on death row as well? Extreme cases? yes, but I call this way too extreme as well.
Your remarks appear extreme (to me) at first glance but, is more likely theory that gives us a roadmap as to what might happen if certain laws are inacted. This type of thought of expansion is why our government is not able to take these things past the point of the society's reason. Taking a law we already have - seatbelts, we could hypothesize that if we are killed in a car accident not wearing our seatbelt then we have committed suicide or we can only drive in good weather, or daytime, or not at all because driving itself causes more deaths by auto accident. Although this example IMO was all about $$.
The right-to-life v mother's right to control her own body is a moral case. When we have a government in power that believes in the right-to-life as a society we get the laws that support that moral stance. When the other side is voted in, they work to put t he other law in effect. Most of us live in the fuzzy middle of the moral debate on this issue. As I stated earlier, I believe the rights of the father, mother and baby should be considered. Wonder why we hardly ever hear debates on the rights of prospective fathers?
D
daniel411
Guest
Originally posted by Wrassecal
As I stated earlier, I believe the rights of the father, mother and baby should be considered. Wonder why we hardly ever hear debates on the rights of prospective fathers?
There was almost a court case on that last year(?). It was complicated, but if I remember correctly:
-A father to be was asked to pay for an abortion that he was against.
-The mother to be had it anyways and wanted him to pay for it.
-He than wanted her charged with murdering his child.
-The prosecutor refused to make that charge saying something like it was her legal right and solely hers.
-His response than, was that if it was solely a womans right whether a child lives or dies. Than a father cannot be held responsible at all for a paying for the abortion, child support payments, etc., since the decision rested soley on the mother.
Strangly the case was completely dropped....
S
sinner's girl
Guest
off topic, Birdy, awhile back when I was active I remember when you were put on bedrest. I'm glad to you both and the twins are doing well. They are adorable!
Daniel411-can you give me more info on the case? was it local, state or S.C?
Is a c-section dangerous to the mother's health? Can they take one out and leave the other? (just wondering)
Daniel411-can you give me more info on the case? was it local, state or S.C?
Is a c-section dangerous to the mother's health? Can they take one out and leave the other? (just wondering)
birdy
Active Member
A c-section is major abdominal surgery, they cut through the skin and muscle into the uterus, they remove the babies and placenta's then stitch up the uterus, muscles and skin, there are risks just as their are in any type of surgery, most c-sections are done with some type of spinal block so the risks of being under a general anethestic are not there for mother or baby, the most common thing to go wrong is major blood loss requiring blood transfusions or even a hysterectomy. And of course the risk of infection. They perform so many of these surgeries though that the risks are slight and normally not life threatening, The inscision is called a bikini inscision, unless you were intimate with the person you would never know it was there it is only about 5inch long and barely even noticable after a year for me.
I have never heard of a case where they have taken the first twin by c-section and the other vaginally, it can be done the other way and frequently happens, once you open up the uterus I think the risks are just too great to leave one of the twins in there.
HTH-Carla
I have never heard of a case where they have taken the first twin by c-section and the other vaginally, it can be done the other way and frequently happens, once you open up the uterus I think the risks are just too great to leave one of the twins in there.
HTH-Carla