inignoct wrote:
] [ Total and complete bullshit. If she agrees to the surgery
] and she dies as a result, did she commit suicide? What if
] something goes wrong with the surgery and both fetuses die?
] Double homicide? Absurd. -k]

I don't think this case is remotely as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. Your basing your perspective on an abstract concept of at what point children gain rights that is based upon your perspective on abortion. Essentially you are arguing that before they are naturally born children have absolutely no legal protection and absolutely no behavior on the part of the mother or anyone else is questionable regardless of how malicious it is.

Deaths from natural birth complications are one in 10,000, whereas deaths from C-Sections are one in 2,500. Its clearly a more risky procedure, and women ought to be able to forgo it.

However, this isn't a case where a bunch of bibled up nut cases are going after someone because she refused a C-Section because she was afraid of the increased risks involved. She refused a C-Section because she didn't want a scar. "Rowland told a hospital nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies" than be scarred by the Caesarean section, which requires a surgical incision to the abdomen." Furthermore, this wasn't a case where there were questions about whether or not the baby would survive. She had obtained several different opinions from several different hospitals who clearly told her that she needed a C-section to save the life of the baby.

She literally made a pre-meditated decision that she would rather one of the children die then have a scar on her abdomen. Thats what we are talking about here. Expecting someone who would make such a choice before birth to have the absolute respect for the health and well being of the child that we require after birth is absolutely ridiculous. Something is obviously wrong here.

I think that its a bad idea to create a legal president that allows bibled up nut cases to go after any woman who chooses natural child birth in reasonable cases. I think that reacting to that possibility by proclaiming that we support any degree of maliciousness prior to childbirth is equally radical and equally unwise.

RE: Eschaton - The War on Women