March 17, 2004

• This is such a finely constructed post, I hate to tell you....
• Actually, I'm aware of that post. And it talked about the fetal rights issue - I'm more concerned about the effects on obstetrics as c-sections and episiotomies are already performed to shocking excess.
• I do look forward to your international scenario post, though. Post it today if you like. I like this post and I hope you can incorporate some of your last two paragraphs into the next one, because I'd like to be able to add an anecdote or two. Unfortunately, this one will be deleted in a couple of hours.
• Grr, preview almost means see who else has posted in the meantime!
• Uh, bullshit, bullshit. C-sections are not any more convenient for doctors. Please talk to doctors about it. here's the facts, jack: the stupid bitch didnt' want a C-section because she didn't want a scar. And this woman is so ugly she looks like a really ugly man. Check out her fuckin' picture. The choice was: get a scar, babies live (that's HUMAN BEINGS, folks). Don't get a scar: baby dies. Human death. Figure it out, it's a pretty fuckin' simple answer. You get the C-section. This stupid bitch deserves everything the court throws at her. now don't pin the anti-abortion thing on me. As far as I am concerned, until the baby has a brain, a heart and a nervous system, it is not anything other than a symbiotic growth. Ok, I don't know at what point to draw the line between bundle of cells & human being, but anything up to about 3 months seems about OK for abortion to me, and it should be up to the woman. THIS is a different damn issue, and making it into some kinda bullshit 'big brother' argument is a crock of shit. She made a human being die because she didn't want a fuckin' scar. To hell with her. And if it takes a damn law to make these stupid MORONS do the right thing viz their crotch-fruit, then make it a law. I hate fuckin' child abusers, and this bitch is a child abuser, nay, child killer. She should have her kids taken away from her as well, cos she sure as hell don't have the smarts to bring 'em up into the world properly, with a fucked-up thinking process like that. Scars are nothing. What a bitch. (sorry about that folks, but this pisses me off)
• Uh. Nostril, cmon man. Check yourself a bit.
• Well I did apologise at the end there. But it makes me reallly reeeeeallly angry. This is one of the few things apart from professional skeptics in CSICOP (that's another thing makin' me angry today) that sends me round the twist. I apologise for being emotional!
• Nostrildamus: while I may agree with your assessment of her as a human being, I think you should have a look at some of the news. I doubt she refused out of vanity, having had two ceseareans before. I think either her mental illness caused her to misunderstand what the doctors were telling her, or the doctors did not communicate themselves to her clearly enough. Otherwise, why would she claim that she would be cut from "breast bone to pubic bone"? Can you imagine being cut like that? Mind you, I am not defending her actions. But if she is convicted of murder, it will set a precedent in law that can have very long-reaching consequences.
• I can understand, Nostrildamus. I feel rather angry myself. She really should have all her children taken from her, and a hysterectomy performed so she can't have any more. She's not fit to be a mother. But that is moral outrage, and legally she should not be persecuted for murder. The law that protects everyone, must protect everyone. Even scum like her.
• Nice dodge Alnedra...who protects the baby that died? There must be consequences to actions. Not everyone who has mental illness, drug addiction or alcholism is incapable of knowing right from wrong. You're right, she should be sterilized and have her children taken from her. She should also be punished for abrogating her responsibilities as a human being. This has squat to do with government telling a person what they can or cannot do with their bodies...it has everything to do with people excercising a humane level of responsibility as our technology evolves and sets the bar of humanity higher. She clearly and willfully failed that; ie, she knew right from wrong and chose some self serving path and now wants to be absolved of responsibility for her actions.
• She clearly and willfully failed that; ie, she knew right from wrong and chose some self serving path and now wants to be absolved of responsibility for her actions. That's the problem. Does she REALLY know wrong from right? She is reported to have a history of mental problems. And from what she says (that is reported in the news), I would agree. I do sympathise for her baby, but as discussed in mefi, I agree with those who state that the rights of the actual citizen outweigh the rights of the potential citizen, in this case the unborn babies. It may not always be the right stand to take morally, but legally if we allow it the other way, a lot more people will come to grief. I am not trying to dodge anything. I do loathe that woman for what she has done. But I don't believe that the law should step in and cuff every pregnant woman who goes against her doctors' orders. Which is what this case may open the door for. Yes, she should take responsibility. Depraved negligence sounds good to me. She should spend time in jail for her actions. But I would also want to see her undergo psychiatric treatment. She is obviously not right in the head. And she should not be considered a murderer in the eyes of the law, even if she is one morally. One more point: I think the hospital(s) should take their fair share of responsibility. Why didn't any of them know that she had a history of mental illness? Why did they not press this case to court before the babies were born? The "hospital witnesses" are the ones accusing her of vanity - this smacks of a pre-emptive strike. Accuse her before she can turn around and accuse them. That may or may not be the case - I will be the first to admit I am talking entirely hypothetically here. But I seriously doubt that the hospitals' hands are lily-white in this issue. This is not a dodge. I am drawing a line here between morality and the law.
• Ah, so now we're sending mentally ill people to jail instead of hospital.
• Surgery is dangerous. C-sections go wrong. Anaesthesia can kill. Why should a court presume to tell a woman that she should increase the risk to her own health for the possible benefit of the child? And from C-sections, how much further can we go in the child's behalf?
• Yes, Wolof, sadly that's what often happens here in the U.S. We ought to be able to do better by the mentally ill, but that's a constituency that has a singularly difficult time speaking for itself. The Andrea Yates case is another tragic example of this.
• I haven't been following the Mefi thread, but I will offer up my answer to your objection. In this instance, the only thing that separated the deceased infant from being an actual citizen, vs. being a potential citizen is the action not taken by this woman. Mental problems do not constitute incompetency under the law. The only thing that satisfies mental incompetency under the law is the inability to distinguish right from wrong; ie, legal insanity. People are sent to jail every day for crimes they commit. I would posit that most criminals are not healthy and well adjusted individuals. That alone does not relieve their culpability for their actions. In this case, I do not see how the diminished capacity of this woman rises to the legal criteria. There are already people having no small number of conniptions over the implications of the Scott Peterson case and what charging him for the murder of his unborn child might do to their agendas. This is just more of the same...gawd forbid that any rights at all be extended to the unborn...even one who dies at the moment of its birth, less it 'diminish' a woman's right to choose. I'm with Nostrildamus on this...the end of the first trimester seems to be the appropriate place to say that it's no longer just a lump of cells.
• Hmm. Well, the obvious answer to this that is being avoided studiously by everyone, but which sticks out like a sore thumb, is, don't let people with mental illness have kids. Not wishing to sound like a Nazi (oh dear, Godwin invoked..) what with the uh, whatsamacallit, trying to make the bloodline pure.. that's not what I'm suggesting - but really, looking at some of the people who drop sprogs all over the joint, don't some of you secretly think that, well, they should be screened? There's a lot of real lowlifes having kids (that's not to say that their kids will turn out the same way, but they certainly aren't being given the necessary help, commitment, guidance they need, etc) Being a parent is a serious, serious commitment. I've got great respect for those who really put their kids' wellbeing above all else. When I lived on this council estate in UK, I've known people to have kids as a way of *competing* with one another for goodness sake. Then they pretty much ignore the little blighters and you can see them growing up with all sorts of psychological and other problems. Then the cycle continues. I'm not sure if I'm in favour of screening people psychologically in this way, but.. well.. there's something to be said for it. Mind you, my mother is nuts, and an ex drug addict, drug dealer, so if such a law had existed in 1970, I wouldn't be here (but to be honest.. that doesn't bother me too much) I have Aspberger's Syndrome, and I won't be a party to bringing kids into this world because I know I wouldn't be a suitable parent. I've taken appropriate steps to be sure that I haven't gotten anyone pregnant, and my life partner agrees with me, she's also from a troubled family background. I wish more people had such honesty with themselves and just lay off. Pardon the pun. Not to mention that overpopulation is a big, big problem on this planet.
• Coot: Then where are you going to draw the line after that? If a woman won't take the supplements her doctor gave her, should she be jailed? If the foetus starts to press on her spine during the second trimester, endangering her life (this actually happened to a friend of mine), should she be accused of murder if she decides to abort? Will we have Pregnancy police patrolling the streets, taking down any pregnant woman caught smoking/drinking/doing strenuous exercises/wearing high heels?
• Argh, slippery slope! Personal story: I had a caesarean and found the aftermath to be not as bad as I had expected. I have a scar, sure, but not where anyone can see. (But that's besides the point, it wasn't scarring that was the issue as we know.) I have been told that an elective caesarean would be appropriate next time because odds are I'll have the same complications -- big-headed baby, mainly -- but I plan on trying for natural anyway because I know the risks to my or my baby's health in such a scenario are low. I find elective surgery for the sake of convenience to be a waste of medical resources and a sign of vanity/laziness in some cases (namely my sister, who says she will have an elective c-section because she just doesn't want to go through labour). Caesareans seemed to me to be less "fashionable" these days, as I found just over a year ago when I went through it (so that 25% statistic surprises me, but I see that the article is over a year old). According to my midwives in NZ and California, it's slowly becoming a last resort, although NZ is a little more behind the times than CA. They are certainly not safer, because when is major abdominal surgery "safe"? The six-week healing period is awkward and slow (trust me) and caesarean patients aren't allowed to drive or do real housework for six weeks. It's an inconvenience. Anyone who has the choice (I think) should avoid a c-section where possible. Obviously if the health of the mother or baby is at risk, it's an option. But it should never be more than that. As for the mother in the article, she is a poor choice for setting a precedent in terms of personal rights/liability over infant/potential person's rights. She had a background of mental illness that obviously impaired her ability to make a decision. I think her decision was wrong, but it seems she was either misinformed or misinterpreted the surgeon's words to her about the c-section. And that's despite having two prior caesareans. A murder charge seems so wrong when she obviously needs psychological treatment.
• I think the wider issues here are very difficult. If we can't refuse an operation where it would save someone else's life, we could all be arrested for failing to donate a kidney. On the other hand, a lifeguard who refrained from saving a drowning child's life merely on the parent's say-so would be on, well, difficult moral ground. But whatever the wider answer, there seems to be an inconsistency in the present case. Either the mother had the right to refuse a caesarian in these circumstances, or she didn't. If she did, there's no case against her: if she didn't, the doctors ought not to have taken any notice of her refusal. Either way jail seems inappropriate.
• Typically, tracicle, so long as your baby was of normal weight (under 10 lbs) and was not affected by any problems (like hydrocephaly) that would cause its head to be way bigger than normal, even a large-headed baby can fit through a normal to small pelvis. Their heads are, to a great degree, "squishable" during their transit through the birth canal.
• Also, Nostrildamus: I work in a hospital. Most of the OBs I've asked about this say yes, they'd much rather do a C-section than a normal birth. The women are more complacent ("none of the screaming and moaning") and they can schedule it. Doctors like it because they're basically in control of the entire procedure. I can see why they'd want that, but I still think it's pretty messed up, priority-wise. If you really think that doctors are working for what's best for the patient and don't want to perform C-sections for convenience, how do you explain the fact that when midwives attend births - even high risk births - the C-section rate drops to a far more normal 12-15%? Whatever reason the "stupid bitch" did it for, you have to realize that c-sections have quadruple the mortality rates for mothers that vaginal delivery has. Why exactly should someone be forced to have a more dangerous procedure instead of a safer one, even if a fetus's life is on the line? If you really believe she's that selfish, please, start prosecuting the women whose children are stillborn because they wouldn't take vitamin supplements or get bed rest - after all, it's easier and less dangerous to do those things than get a c-section, any woman not doing it must be a "stupid bitch" and should be required to get a license to breed, no? (I also find it odd that someone with Asperger's Syndrome would be unable to spell the name of his own condition, but we won't get into that particular discussion on this particular day.)
• This helpful article summarises the current legal situation in England with regard to such cases. The key point is that, if a patient is deemed incompetent to make a decision about medical treatment, then they can be compelled to receive treatment against their will. This would obviously apply to the case of a schizophrenic who refused to take his medication; but it could also apply to the case of a pregnant woman who refused to undergo a c-section. Several such cases have in fact occurred, and the ruling has been that the woman should be compelled to receive a c-section, by force if necessary. What is interesting is that this is *not* an abortion issue. In English law, the foetus has no rights, and the courts cannot order a c-section to be performed for the sake of the unborn baby, only for the sake of the mother where it is deemed to be in her own "best interests". The author of the article argues (rightly, in my opinion) that this is not entirely satisfactory. (That was in 1997; I don't know whether the law has changed since then, though I doubt it.)
• worth pointing out that, for the record, the us government does actually have a ruling that states the point at which life begins. it's not "meant" for humans, not really, but for lab animals. we need to keep track of how many we use on an annual basis. if a rat gets pregnant, the mother is killed, and the babies are removed from the uterus they don't count as animals. they're freebies. people can do whatever they want with them (even eat them, i suppose, and nobody would need to register that in their records; although you do need a good reason for sacrificing the mother). the second that they are born, they're on the books as a legitimate vertebrate animal. c-section is a bit iffy here, as that's not usually done on rats, but lots of primates are used in research, and there might be rules for this in place - i don't do monkey work, anybody out there that has? i think it's kind of moot in many cases, as without mom the life expectancy of a rat pup is pretty short (although you can get other mothers to adopt them) but it pretty much seems if they're dead prior to removal (or going to be dead in short order just after removal) they don't count as living things. so it kinda makes me wonder. if by USDA definition life begins at birth, then why isn't this reflected elsewhere in legal issues? if that's the case, this lady (fine specimen of humanity that she may be) can't be charged with anything. and if the system some day decides that life begins at conception, or at the absolute earliest age that a premature kid can make it outside of mommy (with medical help of course), then how does this affect the good old established rules for animal use? complicated of course by the people who, for various reasons, try to draw a distinction between "human" and "animal", the <1% genetic difference between us and a chimp notwithstanding. must temper this by stating that i'm not sure myself where to draw the line. i think that for legal purposes maybe the "if it's outside of the mom, and it came out on it's own (or with physician-assisted help) it counts" rule that the feds use for lab animals might be the best way to go. my wife was 3 months early; this means that, at that age, inside mom she wouldn't count as a life, but outside she does. it sucks to make that distinction. if a pregnant lady 3 months from delivering is attacked and the baby is killed as a result, we'd all be outraged, right? but could we charge the attacker with murder? if you sneak into a preemie ward and stab a baby, everyone agrees that you're a murderer. but stabbing the mom and killing the unborn... unfortunately if that counts as murder, then so does a mother taking substances like drugs or alcohol that end up killing the fetus. god, have to stop. no logical way to go about this. it makes my head hurt.
• here's the facts, jack: the stupid bitch didnt' want a C-section because she didn't want a scar. And this woman is so ugly she looks like a really ugly man. Check out her fuckin' picture. [...] THIS is a different damn issue, and making it into some kinda bullshit 'big brother' argument is a crock of shit. She made a human being die because she didn't want a fuckin' scar. 1) She can refuse surgery -- elective surgery -- for any reason, as long as she can represent herself. We may find this reprehensible, but it's still the law. 2) Her appearance doesn't really enter into it, does it? 3) It's more than a scar. Saying that a caesarian section is just a matter of small physical inconvenience is disingenuous; threads here and on mefi point out that having the operation can have serious ramifications. 4) It is a big brother issue. The state wants to compel her -- via force of law -- to undergo elective surgery. I do not adhere to their idea that the health or rights of a citizen in potentia should overrule the health or rights of a citizen in esse. I'm suprised nobody's mentioned the parallel this could have with The Handmaid's Tale. on preview : verstegan, maybe Utah can extradite her to Great Britian.
• Coot- childbirth has always been a dangerous process for both mother and baby. There have been advances that have made it less dangerous than it used to be, but there is no certainty that a baby is going to be born alive until it is actually born alive. A family friend had an entirely normal pregnancy up until the 39th week- she realized that she hadn't felt the baby move all day, went to the hospital, and learned that the baby had strangled on its umbilical cord. She was devastated at the stillbirth of her child. But these things happen. There are no guarantees. There was nothing that my friend could have done to change the outcome of that pregnancy. Creating a precedent where women are investigated criminally for late-term stillbirths sounds downright Orwellian.
• I agree completely with Nostril. Nostril had me with "crotch-fruit". HA!
• Ambrosia - my mother was told during her pregnancy with my sister, "don't lift your arms over your head after the seventh month, or the cord will get wrapped around the baby's neck." She figured, old wives' tale, and built a damned fence. her hands were over her head a ton. When my sis was born, the cord was wrapped around her neck three times - she's lucky she didn't suffer from brain damage. With this precedent, though, would my mother have been prosecuted for murder? Makes me wonder.
• I am a twin. My sister and I were born via C-section. My petit mother endured not only a huge scar from the delivery, but she had to go back for two additional surgeries. It seems that the skin on her tummy stretched out so far that when the pregnancy was over, it was beyond repair. But for my amazing mother, as a loving, generous, beautiful woman, knew it was all worth the torment and pain to bring two healthy babies into this world, who would repay her sacrifice with love and success. When i hear the asinine story of this cretin Melissa Rowland, and contrast it with the experiences of my mother who went through the same situation, i become irate. This piece of shit, crappy excuse for a woman should herself be sown inside the stomach of an elephoant and left to die. No, that would be too good for her. May she rot in hell, as she allowed her unborn child.
• elephant...as in the animal.
• naxosaur: You do realize that there's a distinction between "morally reprehensible" and "legally prosecutable"...right? I'm not saying this wasn't a terrible, horrible thing. I'm just saying that she shouldn't be prosecuted for murder, or manslaughter. What "should" happen to her from your moral standpoint isn't what "should" happen legally.
• I too like to accept newspaper reports as irrefutable fact and wish bizarre tortures on people I have never met!
• I remember a day when people would risk their very lives to come to the aid of their child in distress. Now? Meh. In light of the fact that she apparently has some mental illness (they might check in the Handbook for "callous disregard for anyone but self"), I think a murder conviction is unlikely - this is some prosecutor's idea of good press. At best, they might be able to get negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter - whatever it is that they convict anti-medicine religious adherents when one of their children dies. More likely, however, would be some sort of Child Endangerment charge. If she is indeed mentally ill, then the felony conviction could be morphed into some sort of committment. In the meantime, it seems... illuminating, to contemplate: if she is indeed mentally ill, could not the hospital override her refusal on the grounds that she was incompetent to make decisions on her own behalf and that of the baby? And if she isn't mentally ill, then what is her defense, since she'd apparently had Caesarians before without complaint? Whenever I read these sorts of stories, it always reconfirms for me my atheism. For surely no God would create creatures so internally repugnant in His own image, or (best case scenario, here) allow their minds to be poisoned to such a loathesome state.
• I really don't care how she is punished, actually.
• Wait, can I take that back? I say, kill the bitch! /incendiary
• Monkeyfilter: No takebacks!
• I AM ABOVE THE LAW!
• If she is mentally ill, there is established precedent for the hospital to appoint itself guardian and do the c-section. In fact, even with mentally competent patients, hospitals have been able to (ick) get "guardianship of the fetus" and order c-sections - that's already happened, I'll be pulling the article tonight unless someone grabs it before then. Why didn't they take legal action beforehand instead of waiting until afterward?
• wish all expectant mothers could be this happy...
• naxosaxur : May she rot in hell, as she allowed her unborn child. Don't the unborn get a pass to limbo?
• I knew there was something missing from the last thread about this; it just somehow didn't feel complete without demands for the compulsory sterilisation of mentally ill bitches. MonkeyFilter: We're nicer over here.
• flashboy : I want to believe.
• Well, the obvious answer to this that is being avoided studiously by everyone, but which sticks out like a sore thumb, is, don't let people with mental illness have kids. I love the smell of eugenics in the morning. (I made a similar comment here, for which I really should have apologised for - sorry, Sullivan - so maybe I'm being the boy who cried Wolf here, but to me the idea of suggesting who can and cannot breed is morally regugnant. Make decisions for yourself, for whatever reason - and I don't know if I would ever want to be a father, because I expect I'd be fucking awful, due to several rather worrying character flaws, or whatever - but I don't think I'd ever dare suggest that other types of people should not be breeding. I mean, who gets to decide? And what counts as mental illness? People with depression? Bipolar Disorder? Conservatism?) MonkeyFilter: We're nicer over here. flashboy made me laugh though
• the boy who cried Wolof? First MoFi thread where I've felt genuinely, utterly disgusted at some of the opinions expressed, and the tone they've been expressed in.
• Kimberly Grey had a baby in jail and the child died. the baby was born in a toilet. A nurse didn't call 911 until "after the baby was born." Real player video.
• I second flashboy. We are capable of spirited debate without getting all medieval on each other's asses. Use the bleeping "Preview" button! (sorry, watched "Pulp Fiction" again last weekend.)
• (sorry, watched "Pulp Fiction" again last weekend.) I usually dressup like the Gimp whenever I watch Pulp Fiction.
• [ flashboy ]
• >>Kimberly Grey had a baby in jail and the child died. Mama had a baby and its head popped off! (totally inappropriate rhyme, to be proclaimed when popping heads off dandelions...)
• This piece of shit, crappy excuse for a woman should herself be sown inside the stomach of an elephoant and left to die. No, that would be too good for her. May she rot in hell, as she allowed her unborn child. Let's be nice monkeys. That's a dangerous road to go down.
• but to me the idea of suggesting who can and cannot breed is morally repugnant And yet, doesn't the costs of such poor decision-making pale in comparison with those of smoking or eating fatty foods, which we villify and declare that "something must be done"? We lauded scant days ago McDonald's decision to eliminate their supersize menu and point gleefully at the "fatties", their lack of self-control, and what they cost us all in health care, etc., but none of us can venture to mention that, just possibly, it could conceivably, perhaps on the very edge of contemplation, be a bad idea for the insane to have children? Or make spur of the moment decisions that end up killing them? And that it might be a good idea to encourage them not to do so? Forcible sterilization is a distasteful idea, bloated with Godwin-invoking history - but we aren't even close to that, and it isn't necessary. We have safe, effective birth control methods that need only be employed to work. What we don't have is a society that is willing to speak up and say it's a bad idea to let insane people make decisions that kill their children, even as our society is comfortable to say it's a bad idea to smoke a cigarette. And what counts as mental illness? People with depression? Bipolar Disorder? Conservatism?) Bwa! :)
• musingmelpomene, it was a combination of large head and angle of said large object -- he had his head tilted so that it couldn't enter the birth canal. That's why I'm willing to go natural next time; what are the odds of two kids having the same tilt on?
• Good questions, Fes. The state question the state should ask is if the parent is responsible enough to raise a child. We can get into "the slippery slope" arguments from there. The point is we have seen many cases where the state has continued to leave children in abusive homes. At some point the state has the say that the parent is unfit. If it doesn't and a child dies then the state should be held accountable. There certainly are mentally ill people that are unfit parents. I have seen one woman have six kids with four different men. The state has custody of all, but one. That child is with the father's mother. The father is in prison.
• the boy who cried Wolof? *cries*
• Sullivan: I agree that the state more than occasionally makes some truly horrific decisions. I am a scion of the state child-welfare system myself (orphaned early in life, various institutions and foster homes, eventually adopted) so I've gotten to see some of this up close, and perhaps (well, certainly) my views are colored by that. And Epictetus suggests, rightly imo, that we should concentrate our efforts on the things in live that we can control. And yet, I can't help but think that we as adults should do whatever is possible in defense of those truly defenseless members of our society, to the benefit of both the child AND his or her parents. The world could do with a few more old-school cavaliers, in my opinion. As well as a few more justicars.
• I can't help but think that we as adults should do whatever is possible in defense of those truly defenseless members of our society, to the benefit of both the child AND his or her parents. I'd agree with that. I think almost everyone would. Its just if the solution to helping the child and the parent is not allowing the parent to have the child in the first place, it kind of seems a little off, to me, really.
• First MoFi thread where I've felt genuinely, utterly disgusted at some of the opinions expressed, and the tone they've been expressed in. One more word out of you, flash, and we'll be coming round with the sterilization shears.
• Kidding, of course. What boo, flash, and dng said.
• Wow. Bananas to musingmelpomene, alnedra, flashboy, quidnunc and other Mofis for their recovery efforts after some moments of truly extreme ugliness in this thread.
• musingmelpomene, this is a terrifying and fascinating discussion. Thanks for your post. Sorry to veer off topic, but I'd like to know more about Melissa Rowland's background. Did she have the awareness or money to access birth control? Do social services in Utah provide free birth control? How is she caring for the children she already has? With what mental illness has she been diagnosed? What drugs has she been using and for how long? How has their use affected her illness? /reads thread again, head explodes Cases like this have convinced me to never, ever get pregnant. If I want kids, I'll adopt.
• The article about this on your website is excellent, musingmelpomene, as is this post. Thanks (belatedly).
• I find myself in the weird position of actually having great empathy for Melissa Rowland, or at least the person I imagine her to be from the news stories and her picture. It seems likely that she is a person whose life has been utterly ruined by poverty, drug abuse, and mental illness. The horrible decision she made (while possibly not competent) is one more piece of a marginal life that is unlikely now to ever get better. I've never been nearly as poor or as mentally ill as the evidence suggests she is (or a drug abuser at all), but I've been in a bad enough way in both those categories to just get a taste of how powerless and miserable they can make a person. Consequently, the scenarios in which Ms Rowland was minimally or not at all responsible for the death of her baby resonate much deeper in me than those in which she is Jung's "terrible mother", killing her baby because she is vain. Since none of us knows the true circumstances of the case, I submit the way we feel about Ms Rowland tells more about us than about her.
• excellent comment krebs. it bears mentioning that no one but the prosecutor has mentioned vanity as rowland's reason for avoiding surgery.
• just possibly, it could conceivably, perhaps on the very edge of contemplation, be a bad idea for the insane to have children? Coming back to this a bit late, but yeah - I'm down with that. Wasn't my intention to start yelling "hate crime" at any discussion of the issue - and it's an interesting variant on the way the topic was discussed in the previous thread, where the focus was on its relevance to abortion/right to refuse. I'd still always err on the side of "advise, encourage, cajole, but never, ever force" (or "what dng said"), not because I think that's a recipe for happiness and fluffy bunnies, but simply because there's no logically consistent line that I can think of to draw anywhere else. And with psychiatry being such an imprecise medical science, the alternative would be one hell of a scary slippery slope. One more word out of you, flash, and we'll be coming round with the sterilization shears. Can't we agree to compromise? You send me Elijah Wood, I'll promise never to reproduce. /drunken drum-roll, bows, drinks more beer
• You know, I was very into this whole thread and quite honestly, in my gut, agreeing with naxosaxur. I have a deep sense of rage about this Rowland woman for many reasons, some valid, some strictly emotional. But far be it for me to say anything at this point, God forbid, I should show some real passion about a topic and inadvertantly offend some Mofi with my strong feelings. Good grief, I feel like I'm in church sometimes reading Monkeyfilter. It's depressing. This was an excellent post, an emotional topic, good comments. Strong emotions will inevitably be brought up, can we not deal with it and not instantly call someone up for being honest about how they feel. I agree that some people will go overboard, but in this particular thread, I don't believe it's the case. I don't want to have to censure myself so much because someone reading this might be a bit delicate. Not that I want this Rowland woman to die, but I can sure understand the feeling. Can't anyone else?
• I think that it's all right to say, "I really loathe this woman and I think she should be rot." or worse. But bringing her to court and convicting her of murder opens up a precedent, and women in the future could be threatened by lawsuits if they disobey their doctors or do anything that might prove unhealthy for the foetus. I personally do loathe this woman. But I also understand that she may not know what she is doing. And I do not want her convicted of murder, not for her sake, not because I don't think what she did was reprehensible, but for the sake of pregnant women in the future. /Preachy
• You send me Elijah Wood, I'll promise never to reproduce. Well, OK, but I get to keep Sam. The little minx!
• Good grief, I feel like I'm in church sometimes reading Monkeyfilter. Well, one with a porn obsession, at least...
• Darshon - why is your loathing for Melissa Rowland 'passion', and my loathing for some of these opinions and their mode of expression 'delicacy'? I don't see a lack of passion in MoFi, but I do see an awareness that (for so many reasons) expressing passion on the interweb has to be done with greater, ahem, delicacy than would be required in many other situations. (I've had to rewrite this post several times to remove numerous 'What the hell are you talking about's, because they don't fucking help.) It's the difference between an argument (good) and a fight (messy). Now let us pray.
• This is the word of the flashboy: it is right to give him thanks and praise (IMHO).
• Darshon, this forum doesn't exist for therapy. Not yours, mine, or anybody else's.
• Their are two main concerns I have with some of the things suggested here. The precedent setting nature of the case - if these rights are granted to an unborn fetus, they will be argued for earlier term fetuses by the anti-abortion lobby in the US, with an aim to eliminating all abortion. This precedent has already been set with the recent murder case. Alnedra is very right that what is morally right might not be a good legal decision. The birth control/sterilization issue: While one may argue, quite logically, that it is not the best idea for those with mental illnesses or disabilities to be responsible for raising children, we never want to go down the road of any policies around sterilization; even forced birth control gives me heebeegeebies. Because we have been there already - and I'm not talking Godwin, I'm talking Alberta and North Carolina, and all those other places where people of average intelligence were declared mentally unfit and sterilized. Girls were sterlized because they were "promiscuous"; one woman was suggested for sterilization for being a poor housekeeper. Basically, it's not even theory I'm talking about, but the fact that this kind of policy is so easily abused; undesirable behaviour, children with learning difficulties, but the potential to learn if only someone would take the chance - they were declared defective and had something very important to all living creatures taken away from them. In regard to this specific case, as has been pointed out, we really know nothing of the woman, or of why she did not want a C-section. We do know that she went in and out of several hospitals, presumably seeking some kind of help for her pregnancy, but that she also believed that a C-section would slice her open from neck to pelvis - this sounds like she was not thinking rationally, and may have been paranoid or delusional.