Author Topic: Wow. I think this chick may be related to Walmart lady (Read 1464 times)

videoholic · « **on:** March 12, 2004, 08:58:34 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/

Chick is being charged with murder because she refused a C-Section.

Here is a quote:
__________________
Authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother\'s decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.
___________________

OK, here\'s the kicker...

Be prepared...

Seriously.. It\'s not pretty..

Don\'t say I didn\'t warn you...

Kurt Angle · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2004, 09:02:21 AM »

OMG, It\'s a man!

I would be inclined to say a caesarean would improve her looks, it certainly couldn\'t make than any worse. My god what a ugly hag! :eek:

« **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2004, 09:45:00 AM »

They don\'t cut your face when they give you a c-section.

If only...

« **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:01:44 PM »

She shouldn\'t be charged with murder....

...only because I refuse to believe there is any man that would pork that.

« **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:27:05 PM »

*tries to remember if he was REALLY drunk 9 months ago...

« **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2004, 04:08:06 PM »

Sure its dumb on her part.

But to charge her with murder is even dumber.

videoholic · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2004, 04:59:52 PM »

But she murdered her baby.

If someone tells you "Don\'t light your dog on fire, you\'ll kill it."
Would you light your dog on fire?

If you do light your dog on fire, you\'d be charged with animal abuse. Yet you chose to light the dog on fire even though someone told you the dog wouldn\'t live through it.

Living-In-Clip · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2004, 05:16:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by (e)
Sure its dumb on her part.

But to charge her with murder is even dumber.

This coming from the dumbest of dumb members?

Even under abortion laws, if the baby is so far along, it is considered a living being, thus if someone kills the mother and the baby dies, they are liable for the death of the baby. The same would apply to a mother who was about to give birth and chose to let her baby die instead of having a C-section. By the law, she made a choice to murder a living being - thus she should be and is being charged with murder.

End of subject.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2004, 05:20:25 PM »

Agrees with Lic. Can\'t have it both ways ladies.

« **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2004, 08:20:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by (e)
But she murdered her baby.

If someone tells you "Don\'t light your dog on fire, you\'ll kill it."
Would you light your dog on fire?

If you do light your dog on fire, you\'d be charged with animal abuse. Yet you chose to light the dog on fire even though someone told you the dog wouldn\'t live through it.

No, that\'s an active act. Her act would be causing a death by innaction... and it\'s not a guaranteed death, but more probable death. Best charge I think they can actually win with would be manslaughter, by arguing death through indifference.

The fact is it\'s her body, her choice. If she doesn\'t want to go into surgery, is afraid, for instance, we can\'t force her.
Some people turn down blood transplants for their beliefs - and transplants for their children. We don\'t brand them murderers when they die refusing medical attention for it, and we can\'t brand her for it.

Living-In-Clip · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2004, 10:24:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FatalXception
No, that\'s an active act. Her act would be causing a death by innaction... and it\'s not a guaranteed death, but more probable death. Best charge I think they can actually win with would be manslaughter, by arguing death through indifference.

The fact is it\'s her body, her choice. If she doesn\'t want to go into surgery, is afraid, for instance, we can\'t force her.
Some people turn down blood transplants for their beliefs - and transplants for their children. We don\'t brand them murderers when they die refusing medical attention for it, and we can\'t brand her for it.

Refusing a blood transfusion is completely different than making a choice to kill a child that would otherwise live. Like I said, under current law, after a certain point abortions are illegal and the fetus becomes a human being. With that law, it means that whoever kills the baby, accidently or on purporse, is responsible for the murder of the child.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2004, 10:55:11 PM »

The guy that killed his wife while she was pregnant was being charged with a double homicide, this is no different.

Paul2 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2004, 12:07:22 AM »

Can this be compare to abortion?

« **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2004, 04:13:46 AM »

*******************************************
*******************************************

EDIT: Don\'t bring down a discussion with this crap. -Vid

« **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2004, 10:04:42 AM »

That is by far the most selfish thing someone could do.

Hello

Author Topic: Wow. I think this chick may be related to Walmart lady (Read 1464 times)