Wow, thats a new precedent

neoreef

neoreef

Member
As I understand it, there are two kinds of C-section practiced in the US. If the baby is in severe distress and seconds count, the doctor will do the old fashioned way with an incision from the belly button to the pubic bone right down the center. The mentally ill woman exagerated this to be much longer. They do this type in an extreme emergency because cutting on the midline does not sever any large blood vessells, thus they can cut fast and get the baby out very quickly without much blood loss.
You do end up with a scar.
The other way (bikini cut) they do if they have time to cauterize the blood vessells. The scar really is small and in my case dissappears behind the curly stuff. I recovered very fast, and my next pregnancy, the baby came out the regular way with no problems.
Personally, I did not care for the pregnancy state, but I am still, 11 years later, in awe that these perfect, lovely creatures came out of me. It is amazing and wonderful, and I thank God every day for my children.
I do believe that life begins at conception, but I am also pro-choice, because I recognize that others do not feel as I do. I also think that it is more important what happens after the child is born. As important as life is, I think that all children deserve to be loved and wanted and properly cared for. I would not want a child to be born without these essentials.
I cannot help but think that this poor woman should not have children at all. It does not sound like she conciously chose to become pregnant, nor does she care about the precious life she is responsible for. It is all very sad, and I cannot help but that her prosecution is mean spirited. She should have her kids adopted out and be given mental help. I hope her remaining children find a good family who cares for them.
 
sammystingray

sammystingray

Active Member
This lady is worthless as a parent it seems. She beat her other kid in the face in 2000 because the kid ate a candy bar at the store, and she was arrested for that. The effects the case will have is what I fear.......
"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."
 
birdy

birdy

Active Member
This is one of those debates where you can just go back and forth, because there are such differing views, Some people believe that unborn children have the right to live even against the will of the mother, others believe that a woman has the right to do with her body what she want. It would be such a boring life if we all agreed. I was not trying to make any enemies, and Melody I am sorry if my comments offended you. I was just stating my opinion as you were. I guess I do want the govenment telling people that they cannot kill babies.
 
cindyski

cindyski

Active Member
did anyone hear that she ALREADY had 2 c-sections? a family member of mine is followig this story and that is what she heard.
and yes this woman was tested + for drugs also and does have a mental problem.
i'll be interested to see what happens in this case. i personally am not pro abortion, i would prefer adoption and any other choices out there than terminating the life. so many people out there that cant have kids and we see in the paper or hear on the news women putting their kids in garbage cans and dumpsters. what ever happened to leaving on someones door step or at a church?
but that just me and i can see circumstances like ---- that i would justify an abortion, it is a very debated issue, even just to me personally.
i just think the whole thing is sad.
 
kmg

kmg

New Member
Hi Guys--
We're on unsteady ground these days...
Three years ago in Germany, Armin Meiwes placed a personal ad on the Internet, seeking "a young, well-built man who wants to be eaten."
That's twisted all by itself, but it's not the worst part of the story. The worst part is that someone answered the ad.
Bernd Brandes, a man who is said to have had an obsession with pain, allowed himself to be killed and eaten by Meiwes. As a psychiatrist later determined, Meiwes had severe "emotional problems," and last month, he was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison.
But some argue that he didn't commit a crime. In fact, the case raises some very disturbing questions for a society like Germany's and ours. The idea of an unchangeable moral law given by God has been abandoned. The idea today is that we're autonomous—we're free to do whatever we want, as long as we don't hurt somebody else. That puts us in an awkward position when we try to determine just what Meiwes did wrong. By what standard can a modern secularist argue that Meiwes did anything wrong?
But didn't Meiwes hurt Brandes? That depends on whom you ask. Meiwes's lawyer argued that this was a case of "killing on request." Brandes wished to die, and Meiwes accommodated him. In Holland and in Oregon, for that matter, it is legal to help fulfill such a wish.
Perhaps the secularist could say that he finds killing and cannibalism repulsive. But that's no argument. Some pro-choice activists, when pressed, will admit that they find a procedure like partial-birth abortion repulsive. But they'll fight for it because they believe any restrictions on abortions are a blow to their personal autonomy. So how can they object to the way these two men exercised their personal autonomy, even if it was repulsive?
Columnist and physician Theodore Dalrymple makes exactly this point in City Journal. Dalrymple writes, "Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: By what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship? Of course, one might argue that by eating Brandes, Meiwes was infringing on his meal's rights, and acting against his interests. But Brandes decided that it was in his interests to be eaten, and in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests."
Once we stop believing in the sanctity of human life, or in the dignity of each person created in the image of God, or in an absolute moral law, how can we argue with an individual's decision to throw away his own life? How can we ask the state to step in to protect his life, to save him from himself?
I'm reminded of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which Justice Kennedy famously wrote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes took that morally bankrupt definition of liberty to its logical—if extreme and repulsive—conclusion. And the frightening part is that a world that has largely abandoned the Christian worldview has no meaningful response to give to them.
---from Breakpoint.com
 
D

daniel411

Guest
KMG,
The base of law has already been stated:
"The new law shall be... Do as thou wilt... and that will be all of the law"
To let everyone know, that is not a verse from the bible or christianity. If you know who wrote that, look up what they wrote about abortion. That alone is likely to frighten a person.
Originally posted by Sinner's Girl
Daniel411-can you give me more info on the case? was it local, state or S.C?
I honestly don't recall, I read about two dozen newspapers/news sites a day. I'm sure I printed it out and saved it, but will have to see if I can find it.
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
I was wondering what happened to her. Now lets hope someone tells her about birth control. Sad that she has 3 children now all the responsiblility of someone else in her family.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Whole bunches of emotions come up on this case.
My take:
I have absolutely no right to dictate to another human being what they do with their body as long as what they do does not endanger me.
 
D

daniel411

Guest

Originally posted by beaslbob
Whole bunches of emotions come up on this case.
My take:
I have absolutely no right to dictate to another human being what they do with their body as long as what they do does not endanger me.
Agreed... but is it really "their own" bodies which are being harmed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top