Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic… - don't let the bastards grind you down.
"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

one reason i hate when people destroy your argument by saying it has logical fallacies is that some of the fallacies have some fallaciousness, or fallacy, of their own, if you will. some of them, like the "slippery slope" argument, can be extrememly meritorious, yet get attacked because they cannot be used as a definate "proof" of something...they're speculation.

so, if you bring up the patriot act -> big brother, well, that's a slippery slope that, while probable, can be attacked because it's a logical fallacy...there's no definitive proof.

where am i leading with this?

here's your fucking slippery slope for ya.

a mother decides not to have a c-section to save her twins apparently because of cosmetic reasons. one dies two days before birth. she's being charged with murder. as much as i want her to fucking rot in hell and would probably divorce her and take the children if she were my wife....i don't know how i feel about forcing women to undergo surgical procedures.

slippery slope:

1. forcing women to undergo surgical proceedures to save an unborn child's life.
2. outlawing abortion at some arbitrary point
3. bringing criminal charges if the woman smokes or doesn't follow her obstetrician's diet.
4. forcing women to bring to term an infant from rape, incest, etc., against her will...not merely because she can't get an abortion, but if she tries to get a miscarriage (boxing, etc.) then by eventually securing her to a hospital bed and giving her a feeding tube until the baby's born.

okay, this might nearly be as bad as senator santorum's idea that gay marriage -> beastial marriage, but you get the idea. no matter how heinous certain acts are, i don't know if we can legislate them.

and keep in mind i really would be all for step 1, and in the case of step 4, if it was a legitimate child but the woman just didn't want it, i'd be for it too....but i realize that neither of those are all that legal..that's just how my emotions play into it.

edit...more from CNN

utah has a law that fetuses are covered under homicide laws, except when their death is done through abortions. this is used to prosecute women who kill their unborn babies through drug use, etc. so, this rowland is likely to fry. i dont' know how i feel about that, because i like these laws.
20 comments or Leave a comment
citizengwen From: citizengwen Date: March 12th, 2004 06:29 am (UTC) (Link)
i totally agree. when i first heard the story i only heard the "being charged with murder" part and i flipped. i thought it was ridiculous. then, when i heard the "don't want a scar" part, i flipped again and thought the woman was mad. but even though she's a piece of shit, she should not be charged with murder.

it's like that case of the woman in florida, where her husband wanted to take her off life support but her family didn't. as much as the husband could have wanted her to die to marry another woman and be a slimeball, he IS her guardian, or whatever term they use, and he was expressing her wishes. if you change that law, who knows what more problems will be caused.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 12th, 2004 11:43 am (UTC) (Link)
and, as in this case, there was a specific law that came into play. in terri's case, it was verbatim "feeding tubes" that were included in stuff that were considered "life support"
tanksmash From: tanksmash Date: March 12th, 2004 06:58 am (UTC) (Link)
So the lady didn't want a scar. I'm not going to flip - it sounds silly, but it's this woman's body and her being charged with murder is horribly ridiculous.

And I am pro-choice.

And I am NOT for number one, as some procedures could endanger the mother's life herself - so forcing her to undergo an expensive medical procedure that could potentially endanger her life? LUDICROUS.

And forcing women to bring a child to term because she was raped or something of the sort? Even fucking worse. That's a goddamn crime.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 12th, 2004 11:55 am (UTC) (Link)
before you think i'm a monster, i do agree with you on all counts....it's just that, because the baby could live outside the mother at this point, it tugs the heartstrings.

and when i listed my support for number 4, remember, i meant "minus the rape and incest stuff".

sometimes technology changes law and tradition. life support and "pull the plug" decisions didn't exist 75 years (or so) ago. medical ethics needs to be flexible, unfortunately.

babies can live outside the mom after week ...27? or so with technology. after 34-36 with just some TLC. these were babies around 40 weeks gestated. they had circadian rhythms, they hiccupped, when they slept, they had dreams. these were children that just didn't have a chance to be born.

it's dangerously irresponsible for her not to do everything in her power to save this kid's life. a mother who saves herself by jumping out of a window of a building that's on fire, neglecting her toddler who can't climb out the window....obviously that'd be felonious child endangerment, at the very least.

and if she was in the hospital already, and they decided to give her a c-section, well, guess what?


she could rant and scream, and the doctors would ignore her.

americans have some weird thing about age. we like to believe that one day, you're not capable of something, and then the next, well, you better be good at it. driving, drinking, fucking, and in this case, living. what the hell?
swolfe From: swolfe Date: March 12th, 2004 07:05 am (UTC) (Link)
from fark forum:

2004-03-12 09:14:38 AM Pocket Ninja

So, I'm curious. If I have a rare blood type that's needed to save the life of someone who's dying, and there's no reason I can't donate the blood other than I really hate needles and can't be bothered, am I guilty of manslaughter for contributing to the unnecessary death of that person by not donating blood? If one of my kidneys can save a poor little girl who's dying in the hospital, do I have to give it to her?

I don't like this "mandatory surgery to save a life" doctrine. No, don't like it all. It's easy to portray the woman as hateful for not wanting a caesarean, but there might be a lot more here than meets the eye. And, ultimately, the decision to have or not have a surgery must be the patient's. ANy other reality sets a very, very dangerous precedent.
swolfe From: swolfe Date: March 12th, 2004 07:10 am (UTC) (Link)
and another (counter this time):

2004-03-12 09:23:38 AM ruta

For those saying that she shouldn't have been charged and that this will lead to the arrest of any mother who has a miscarriage (which would have to be pretty much every woman on the planet who has ever tried to conceive), RTFA. The babies were three weeks to term when she first went to the doctor and four days to term on the last chance she could have delivered the baby alive. This wasn't an abortion issue. She'd face the same charges if delivered the baby alive at this point and then killed it.

She went to get medical advice THREE times and walked away each time. Each time, her only excuse was that she preferred a dead baby over a scar on her belly (which is bizarre, since with the way C-sections are done these days, it actually leaves less overall scarring and stretch marks than a normal delivery-- so she's an ignoramus on top of everything else).

Now, subsitute a baby that had already been born, and was sick, and the mother took it to a doctor three times, but each time refused a simple, life-saving procedure because of some completely frivoulous or selfish reason. Then that baby died.

Resume your argument. With credibility.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: March 12th, 2004 07:24 am (UTC) (Link)
ya know, the doctors tell me that I'll have a very difficult time conceiving a child and this woman just lets hers die because she didn't want a mark on her belly????!?!?!?!?!?!!

it's not like she had no idea that a cecearan wasn't a possibility...it's always a possibility when you you're pregnant.

FUCK VANITY!!!!! I wish her dead.

chaos4675 From: chaos4675 Date: March 12th, 2004 07:29 am (UTC) (Link)
These are the types of issues I love and hate the most. There's no simple answer, so there's TONS of room for debate. At the same time though people tend to get too emotional and begin acting like retards. Personally I don't think anybody should ever be forced to do anything. Is this person a piece of shit, sure. The question though is what should somebody be legally compelled to do.

Once a child is born I think you should have the legal responsibility to either take care of it or call DYFS (or something similar) and declare yourself as an unfit parent. Before birth though I don't think you have too many responsibilities, and certainly not any that could entail a murder charge for neglect. Really though it's the same as the heart of the abortion issue. When does potential life become life? When you define that you define all of the issues discussed. Unfortunately there's no concrete logical definition for that. Sperm react to their environment like a newborn baby. So is masturbation murder? Or should it be ok to kill a two week old child? Life is so much fun.
(Deleted comment)
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 12th, 2004 11:45 am (UTC) (Link)
if what the second fark poster says is true about c-sections. or even close to true.

totally true. i heard it myself, and i've had sex with women who've had c-sections.
chaos4675 From: chaos4675 Date: March 12th, 2004 12:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
Sure I can argue that it isn't a life. Or I could at least argue that it's not more of a life than sperm. A newborn baby does little more than react to rudimentary stimuli, the same as sperm. So on that account I'd argue that post birth abortions should be legal. The survival thing doesn't fly well with me. A premature baby would be considered life, but it may not survive without medical help. A newly fertilized egg has a possibility of surviving with medical help just the same. So are you going to base life on the "probability of survival"? Once a thing has a 50%+ chance of living outside its mother it's alive? Maybe it's 47.345%+? Or 68.184%+? Also is a 3 year old more alive than a new born, but less alive than a 15 year old? The real question though is when does the soul develop? The answer is 27 minutes before birth. So now I've solved the biggest controversy in the world and we can all go home.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 12th, 2004 01:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
you're being disingenuous.

we all agree that something outside of its womb, metabolising and thinking on its own, is considered living. this isn't up for discussion. at what point it can be considered "no longer living" might be...but that's not what we're talking about.

don't compare a fertilized egg with a newborn. apples and oranges. talk about logical fallacies.

chance of living has very little to do with it. it's just useful to illustrate that maybe we need to think of fetuses a little differently than just "part of the mother".

for me, i consider the fetus as an "unborn child" when complex brain activity starts, and the child can feel pain. this happens at like, 8-10 weeks. that's what a LOT of people are comfortable with.
chaos4675 From: chaos4675 Date: March 15th, 2004 08:12 am (UTC) (Link)
You can't make a counter point of "[you don't believe that]". I mean that's not even ad hominem. At least say, "You're an idiot if you believe that". Personally though I do constantly question the value of life and do actually have to consider the difference between masturbation and killing a newborn baby when I think about abortion. Then again if there is oblivion after death then death at any age is irrelevant.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 15th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
where'd i say that? i never said "you don't believe that".

i said you were being disingenuous because you're using fake numbers to illustrate a point. if you mean the part where i say "we all agree" then i'm merely establishing a base set of rules with which to build on. "common law", almost.

you questioning the value of life doesn't actually change the value of life, neither is your questioning of death. you may, because you don't have enough information or because you don't want to think about all the information, need to consider the difference between masturbation and killing a newborn baby, but if you add in more information, then there isn't any NEED to do so.
chaos4675 From: chaos4675 Date: March 15th, 2004 02:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well your argument is still that "it is, because people say it is". Look at it from a very realistic concrete view. If you don't believe in God or an afterlife then in death there is nothing. If there's nothing in death then your life has absolutely no meaning. I say this because I believe that the only thing that exists is what you perceive. So with no direct perception of anything in death there is no meaning to the past, present, or future. That being the case then it wouldn't matter what happened to any life. Masturbation as a means of killing a child would be equivalent to killing somebody that was 30. Neither would have any meaning so they’d be equivalent.

So my point is that I'm not being disingenuous at all. The case where there is no meaning to life and everything is irrelevant I find to be the most likely case. With more information I wouldn't need to consider the difference between killing a newborn and masturbating, but that information is not going to come to me except in death or a very rare apocalyptic event. Even if it were to become known that there was an afterlife, I think I’d need an incredible amount of information that’s currently unavailable to me to make a decision about when life begins. Especially related to such a finite amount of time as a few weeks. Also I think right off the bat I would have to question if an amount of time from conception is the appropriate approach. I have to assume that there is some variance in development. So maybe for some it’s 6 months and others it’s 7.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: March 15th, 2004 05:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
Also I think right off the bat I would have to question if an amount of time from conception is the appropriate approach. I have to assume that there is some variance in development. So maybe for some it’s 6 months and others it’s 7.

well, sure, sure...i think one would need to make some kind of leeway there, but of course, like i mentioned before, we, as a society, tend not to do that. one day you aren't able to X, and one day you are.

i never put much stock in nihilism. it's a relatively recent concept, and one that really can't exist without a strongly scientific society, i would think. but, i don't put much stock in it because it seems to ignore the arbitrary nature of life ("it is, because people say it is" is the basis for much of culture and society, so even if it's not logically legitimate, it's accepted enough so that it has de facto legitimacy), but they arbitrarily decide that at some point, something in their lives is worth doing...otherwise, why wouldn't nihilists just off themselves right away?

boiling everything down to not having any meaning, and then mentioning that masturbation and killing a 30 year old are logically equivalent certainly is misleading. because what you're really saying is masturbation, killing a 30 year old, robbing a bank, fucking a 100 year old man, speeding, watching soap operas, fixing a gutter, and watching the moon rise are all the same thing, because they are all equally worthless in the long run. and that doesn't address the issue at hand, other than by saying "it doesn't matter what people think, because none of it matters in the first place"

BUT...what i was trying to say before is that whether or not there is any meaning to life is a topic distinct from when life begins, and whether or not it is moral to legislate it.

i mean, seriously. is "enjoying life" a good enough reason to stick around? you're just irrelevant, so why not give it up?
chaos4675 From: chaos4675 Date: March 16th, 2004 08:03 am (UTC) (Link)
Good counter and you're right I am staying a little from the topic at hand. My point though is that debating whether something is red or green doesn't have much meaning if nobody can see. Also, I'm not really sure why nihilists continue to live. Personally I don't kill myself because there's no way to be sure that there isn't life after death.

The question at hand though really isn't when does something become a life, but when does it become a meaningful life. Well that's the question I try to deal with. It's an almost impossible question to answer unless you have a belief in a soul.
yittleone From: yittleone Date: March 12th, 2004 03:49 pm (UTC) (Link)

i am pro-choice by the way

A fetus, no matter how newly conceived, is always a child to me. This woman made an awful decision and killed one of her children. And she will have to explain to her surviving child that he/she was a twin until she decided to let the other twin die.

However, how can the law permit abortions but consider this situation murder? It's either murder or not. You can't put a time frame on when the child becomes a child because then you must think "oh this week you're not a person yet, but in a few more days you will be". That seems ridiculous. I just can't understand the technicalities of the legal system.
yittleone From: yittleone Date: March 12th, 2004 03:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, and the lady was FUGLY!

So why should she care about a scar on her belly? I don't think it would have driven anyone away that wasn't already scared by the sight of her in the first place.
swolfe From: swolfe Date: March 18th, 2004 11:25 am (UTC) (Link)
20 comments or Leave a comment