This is somewhat OT from the discussion at hand ... but not that far.

In many respects, the scope and the increasing number of suits and litigation involving child abuse have become more diverse and more encompassing. Almost anything, it seems, that is even remotely harmful to a child, if construed from a particular vantage point, can be considered abuse.

There was a report on NPR this AM that discussed the deleterious effects TV has on a young child, suggesting that perhaps, in the matter of violent programs or those with an excessive(?) amount of hyper activity, that those programs may somehow contribute to AHDD. If so, can the attending adult / parent that allowed the viewing be held accountable for child abuse? Or child endangerment?

Or, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents?

Another example ... During the period beginning 1980 through 2000, the number of children considered obese has risen from 6.5% to 15.3%. And obesity is directly linked to diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

Following the above line of reasoning, can the parents or guardians who allow children to ingest such a diet in excess (define excess) be held accountable for child abuse. And by whom?

People have sued the fast food industry for exactly that. In the case of an adult suing the fast food industry the argument can be made that no one sat that person down in front of a Big Mac, put a gun to his head, and forced them to eat it. Not so with a child -- he generally eats what is put in front of him with little or no recourse in the matter. If that food happens to be harmful when consumed to excess, can the parents be held accountable?

Or again, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents for his obesity and subsequent complications?

Haven't seen this one (or anything like it) in the news, but I'm sure when some enterprising barrister finally conceives of the idea, we will (see it).

__________________
If I came here to talk, I would have worn underwear.

I'm not sure I have given this much thought. Whenit first happened, a lot of the details were more sketchy, and I was in the woman's cornor. However, that was when the only quotes released were that one doctor told her it "might" be neccesary, and that it "might" not. I had heard the remark about not wanting a scar.

No, hearing more, I think what the woman decided was grossly negligent, and if people can be prosecuted for killing the unborn child in another person's body (IE: the Lacy Peterson case), then I suppose gross negligence can be applied to the mother, as well.

Drug abusers who get their kids high in the womb are prosecuted.

I really haven't given this one much thought, but either way, I can't really say I'd ever think of this woman in a good light, either.

What she did is defiantly against my own morals. That being said, I'm also very pro-choice about abortion, though it's not something I would ever do to myself. But just because I would never do it, doesn't mean others shouldn't have the right to choose, either.

Gah, this is a rather conveluted case, in all regards. I just don't like it all around. I can't imagine what the surviving twin is going to feel like when he/she realizes that there was a twin, and why the twin isn't with him/her.

__________________
My Corset Pictures My Feathers My Legs My 'get to know me' pics
Love's Bitch, the writings of my mind

Gilly,

I have found that issues of moral and ethical behavior are seldom easy to resolve. You touch on a key issue; how to balance both the woman’s right to her own body, and the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Both are valid, but where does one take precedence over the other? Drug abuse is an easy call, but what about the other issues raised here?

__________________
Eudaimonia

In my state, mother's who bear children addicted to crack are not prosecuted. Their babies are not even always removed.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

From breast bone to pubic bone? I thought that was the old procedure.Don't they cut from side to side leaving a smaller scar and below the bikini line? Not like the old days when I was a caesarian birth.

__________________
Sex is one of nine reasons for reincarnation.The other eight are unimportant...Henry Miller

Yeah, they do it under the belly button now days, and the insicion is usually about 7 inches long, and heals a barely visable white line, with maybe some slight puckering of the skin.

Hell, most the time, wearing a bikini is still fine.

I don't get how a scar would ruin anyone's life. Good god, did the woman not get stretch marks at all? They don't go away! I was so self conscious of mine after #1. By #3, they're an annoyance, but eh, part and parcel with the end package. I guess a huge scar disfiguring someone's face might be life changing, sure, but on the stomache? Was she a model? Heck, from the picture I've seen, she definatly wasn't a model. Ok, ok, that was shallow. But still, how does a scar you recieve giving birth ruin your life?

Your life alters drastically with children, and I have to wonder if THAT wasn't what she was more scared of.

__________________
My Corset Pictures My Feathers My Legs My 'get to know me' pics
Love's Bitch, the writings of my mind

BIG FAT UGH! I looked up here name, and found THIS pleasing article. UGH UGH UGH!!!!




http://www.nydailynews.com/front/st...2p-153153c.html


She just pisses me off now.

__________________
My Corset Pictures My Feathers My Legs My 'get to know me' pics
Love's Bitch, the writings of my mind

Gilly,

There’s the rub. Is it possible – even in principle – to reconcile such different ethical positions? As Lilith reports, some jurisdictions do not consider addicting unborn babies to cocaine to be criminal behavior. It would seem that some do not even consider it worth intervening in such lifestyles. You, and many people like you, recoil from such behavior. What is considered criminal behavior in Utah is, it would seem, condoned in Florida.

The National Organization of Women does have an argument which bears acknowledging: there exists behavior which, while you may not approve of it, you accept it. A woman has more rights over her body than does the state. While easy to state, this leads to an unavoidable tension when the woman’s decisions are not seen to be in the best interests of the foetus. Does the mother eat right and get enough sleep? Does she drink alcohol or smoke? Does she take advantage of all the help (Well Baby checkups, parenting classes, etc.) that many jurisdictions offer – sometimes for free? If not, should she?

The article you quoted seems to have a distinct slant, what with references to “most radicalized women's group” and “NOW and other misguided groups”, so I’d discount some of the assertions made there. Nevertheless, there are some interesting points made, such as the notion of "bodily integrity" as it might apply to a viable baby in the womb. Medical science has made great strides in the last 31 years (Roe v Wade, 1973), and in many instances, the laws have not kept pace.

__________________
Eudaimonia

In all honesty, I don't think I've ever even heard of the group. What outrages me is that this woman has had children taken from her for child abuse, and was coked up and drunk when she was giving birth. Whether she did or did not heed medical advice about when to have her babies, she completly disregarded they the babies were living beings at all, when she snorted and drank her way to the delivery room.

Other articles I've found state that the woman's ex-husband (and father of the surviving twin) says that the only reason she didn't want the c-section, was because she was afraid of what might happen when they drew blood and found the toxicants in her blood stream.

Another article shows her quoted as saying she never refused one in the first place, and would never have done so on the merits of a scar alone. She said she'd had a previous c-section, and already has the scar.

Now, there's no doctors stating whether or not she did have one, and nothing more than her word to go on. Personally, people all over America, regardless of state, have thier children taken away for parental neglect, abuse, and drug use.

I admit, I don't know all the facts, but my thoughts are this: If she had neglected that child alive and caused its death from physical neglect rather than medical neglect, she'd be tried for it.

If she gave her 2 year old coke and alcohol, she'd be tried for it.

She did all this in utero, sure, but if any person in America can have thier kids taken away after they are born for the same practices, why can't something be done to stop a potentially harmful situation before they are born?

She has the history. She was put up for adoption herself at birth, because the mother was mentally retarded, and couldn't raise a child.

By 12, she was in a mental institute.

A few years ago, 1 child is taken away after she punched the child in the face.

Now, she's got 1 remaining child that originally came in a set of 2. The remaining child was addicted to alcohol and cocaine at birth. Now, my guess (and yes, just a guess, I've found nothing to support this one way or another) is that the reason the dead child died, and had a low heart rate for so long, is likely in conjunction with her drug and alcohol abuse.

I do agree that a woman's body is her own. She should have the right to decide what to do with her body.

But that baby shouldn't have had to suffer because she wanted to get high in the first place.

Personally, I think people with a history of drug abuse, child abuse, mental abuse, and anything else that is potentionally harmful to a child, should be made sterile and their children given to the millions of people out there who want a child, and can't have a child.

Gah. I'm sorry, I'm ranting and raving, and being all opinionated. I know not everyone views things the same, and the last thing I'd expect is for that to happen. So, yeah, I got a bit preachy, but it's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

__________________
My Corset Pictures My Feathers My Legs My 'get to know me' pics
Love's Bitch, the writings of my mind

Time for me to be blunt - String her up. This woman did nothing short of premeditated murder. For some reason to many people here in the U.S. don’t want to believe that an unborn child is a living person. This woman should face first-degree murder charges, because she made a conscious choice to kill this child.

Re: Mercury_Maniac: I personally read the blue paper submitted to the Surgeon Generals Office many years ago, regarding the effects of second hand smoke. In the report they detailed how they determined that second had smoke was a threat. They placed two small mice in a 20gal fish tank, filled the tank with the smoke from 200 cigarettes (one carton). When the mice died, they autopsied them and measured the amount of carcinogens in their lung tissue. In a follow up, another team submitted findings that concluded that more carcinogens were inhaled on a typical New York street, from internal combustible engines, than can be attributed to second hand smoke in a smoke filled bar, but the specifics of these reports were never widely published, because they would have been detrimental to the C. Everett Coups agenda.

Regarding all of those government statistics: A physician friend of mine advised me that in California he was required to associate any and all respiratory ailments as smoking related if the patient was a smoker, or was subject to second hand smoke, regardless whether there was any evidence of it or not. Additionally, while a State Trooper in Florida, we were advised to associate all accidents where the driver had consumed “any” alcoholic beverages in the past 24 hrs as an alcohol related incident. In both cases the point was to enhance government statistics.

I realize that smoking is a disgusting habit, and is offensive to many, me included in certain situations. But there are many far more dangerous things in our daily lives than second hand smoke.

__________________
Dreams are only realities you haven't "Let" come true !

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...other_charged_6

SALT LAKE CITY - The woman accused of murdering one of her twins by failing to undergo a timely Caesarean section pleaded guilty Wednesday to two counts of child endangerment.


Melissa Ann Rowland had been charged with murder for failing to follow doctors' advice to undergo the procedure, which they said was necessary to save the life of her twins. Under a plea bargain, the murder charge was dropped.


Prosecutors said Rowland, 28, acted with "depraved indifference" when she allegedly ignored doctors' repeated warnings to undergo a C-section to save the babies' lives.

On Wednesday, she admitted using cocaine in the weeks before she finally underwent the C-section that produced a stillborn boy. The second child, a girl who survived and has been adopted, was found with cocaine and alcohol in her system.


Rowland was sent back to jail after the hearing, during which she showed little emotion but appeared disappointed when the judge denied a request to release her from custody until sentencing on April 29.


Under the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend that Rowland receive concurrent terms of zero to five years in prison, court probation and admittance to a drug treatment program.


Rowland has said she never intended to kill her baby and was not informed she needed immediate surgery. She denied prosecutors' allegations she was worried about a scar, saying she delivered two previous children through C-sections.


Her attorney, Michael Sikora, has said Rowland suffers from mental illness.


"She decided it was in her best interest to resolve the case as soon as possible, and I support her in the decision she made," Sikora said outside the courtroom.


Salt Lake County prosecutor Langdon Fisher said the plea agreement was reached based on Rowland's "mental health history." Prosecutors had originally dropped the child-endangerment charge and planned to use evidence that Rowland used cocaine to bolster the murder charge.


"We believe these pleas are in the interest of justice," Fisher said.


The National Organization for Women (news - web sites), Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and others have said prosecutors went too far, calling the case a back-door effort to undermine abortion rights and an attack on a poor, possibly mentally ill person.


Legal experts said they do not know of any other instance in the United States in which a woman was charged with murder for refusing or delaying a C-section, though some women have been forced to undergo C-sections after their doctors obtained court orders.

__________________
My Corset Pictures My Feathers My Legs My 'get to know me' pics
Love's Bitch, the writings of my mind

Gilly---I'm not speaking for her but I'm a recovering alcoholic.Tho
many don't want to admit it,alcohol is a drug.The only difference is that it's legal.The 15th of this mo.,will be 11yrs10mo. for me.In
any case,you have to watch yourself,all of the time.Your body goes thru withdrawel,like any other drug addiction.I'm not saying,
that there is anything wrong with alcohol,if not abused.As far as
I'm concerned,if she didn't want an addicted child,she should have
stopped or not gotten pregnant! Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

I know I probably shouldn't say this, but there is a part of me that believes, even though I know that it could never work due to all the other implications that would arise from it, but....

There should be a license required for pregnancy and parenting!

I just get sick thinking of all the unfit people out there that are subjecting innocent children or soon to be children to their ignorance and lack of responsibility.

A few examples just from last nights news...

~Man arrested after having his 12 year old daughter drive home, because he was too drunk. BTW...the reason they were caught is the daughter hit a tree.

~Child left alone in a vehicle.

~Mother who attempted to kill her 2 yr old daughter and herself after catching her husband raping the 2yr old. Here I don't necessarily blame the mother, but the sick bastard of a father!
Apparantly the mother immediately called 911, daughter was treated at the hospital and upon returning home the mother attempted the murder/suicide.

That last one brings up a whole new can of worms, in that the hospital never should have just released the mother and baby w/out having some psycological evaluations. Especially when there are unknown religious/social beliefs....ie...in some countries it would be believed that the child would now be "unclean" unable to be married etc...The mother could have been of the belief that immediate death was better than an uncertain future.

I'll shut up now...no offense meant to anyone, just some ramblings on my part.

__________________
my pics

1 2 3 4 5 6

Never say never, but if you do it's okay to change your mind~me, I think