America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html

Woman Refuses Caesarean, Charged With Murder

Friday, March 12, 2004
SALT LAKE CITY — As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. One nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

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.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

___________________________________________________________________________

I find this and other stories like this very frustrating. We say it’s a mother’s right to choose abortion because the fetus is not a human being until birth, but then we get this story as well as Scott Peterson’s “DOUBLE” murder trial saying something completely different. So is a fetus a human being or a piece of property?

Perhaps Scott Peterson should be charged with one count of murder and one count of personal property destruction.

Saw a bumper sticker the other day:

"If it's not a baby then you're not pregnant."

That about sums it up for me.

i am adamantly pro-CHOICE, and i emphasize CHOICE because i am *not* pro-ABORTION. i cannot get pregnant, and it's not on me or any other man to tell a woman what she must do if she becomes preggers.

my simplistic view is: if you're against abortion, then don't have one.

i do think the abortion football has been kicked into way too much political ground and has not enough medical basis anymore. there is a LOT more work that needs to be done to understand the pro's and con's of it more fully.

it's not a procedure that automatically condemns a woman to a nightmare hell life where every day afterwards she moans over her poor choice and can never again become pregnant -- though it does happen to a few.

it's also not a procedure like clipping a toenail that is quick and simple with virtually no risks -- short- or long-term -- to a woman's physical and mental health.

personally, i think that it should always be a last resort procedure performed in the first trimester and only very rarely in the second (and only then when the woman's life is in imminant danger).

more research is necessary about the effects of abortion on a woman's body and mind before lawmakers go passing laws about the procedure.

Hard to argue with that. Thanks CW!