stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 02:39:27 PM new
A Florida woman has been accused of first degree murder for putting her newborn in a knapsack and drowning it in a canal. She is said to have originally told authorities the child was born alive, but after getting counsel changed her story to say that the child was stillborn. She is out on bail and scheduled to go to trial next month. She is now pregnant again!!!!! Shouldn't she be given a speedy trial and if found guilty be forced to abort the child? If she is not, she could kill this child at any time!
|
yellowstone
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:03:21 PM new
and if found guilty be forced to abort the child?
How on Gods green Earth and in the USA can you FORCE someone to have an abortion.
THIS QUESTION REALLY DOESN'T DESERVE A REPLY.
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:10:30 PM new
yellowstone-"How can you force someone to abort?" Are you asking from a medical view or an ethical one? Medically it can be done with chemical injection. Ethically it is a question of whether it is wiser to put this other child at risk by allowing her to take it to term or ,if she is proven guilty, to preemptively end the fetus' life before it can be killed by her after it is born.
|
sulyn1950
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:22:20 PM new
Couldn't you wait until it was born and remove it from this woman and make it a ward of the State?
|
sulyn1950
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:25:23 PM new
Oops! Meant to "edit" hit post instead so:
Stusi are you saying you think it would be better for the State to "kill" the baby before the mother gets a chance to?
|
yellowstone
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:28:28 PM new
Ethically it is a question of whether it is wiser to put this other child at risk
So you take away the risk by killing the unborn fetus before she can after it's born?
stushi
Are you even reading your posts before you hit the post reply button because your posts don't make any sense what-so-ever?
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:31:43 PM new
sulyn- strange ethical issue---I think it might be better for the state to kill a fetus than for her to kill a live born. If it could be guaranteed that the child could be taken from her immediately after birth, that would of course be preferable but perhaps difficult to ensure. It would only take a split second for her to kill it.
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:34:17 PM new
yellowstone- she has already done it once! Do you have no concern that she could do it again? She is out on bail pending trial. Shouldn't she be confined under guard as she now has a second potential victim?
[ edited by stusi on May 23, 2002 03:35 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:37:21 PM new
stusi
This is the nuttiest thread that I have ever read.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on May 23, 2002 03:38 PM ]
|
yellowstone
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:38:00 PM new
Ditto
Edited to add; I sure hope stushi isn't a Republican.
[ edited by yellowstone on May 23, 2002 03:46 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:46:39 PM new
Where is twinsoft? Maybe he can have it blown up. HaHaHa!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 03:58:18 PM new
No, yellowstone...this is not a political issue at least not democrat or republican.
|
yellowstone
|
posted on May 23, 2002 04:05:08 PM new
this is not a political issue at least not democrat or republican.
Helenjw
Would you mind if I were to use this line in the future in other threads and thanks for the clarification.
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 04:07:51 PM new
yellowstone- No republican here.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 04:25:19 PM new
Yellowstone,
I hope that you realize that I was thinking of a third govt. term. 
Sure, you can use it. LOL!
I say lol a lot but this thread has me laughing more than a lot.
|
mezuzas
|
posted on May 23, 2002 04:46:14 PM new
When I was pregnant my "fetus" was alive. How could she grow if not alive??
This is absurd.
|
nycyn
|
posted on May 23, 2002 05:06:41 PM new
Initial post not deserving of a response.
|
gravid
|
posted on May 23, 2002 05:08:51 PM new
I find myself thinking more and more often that perhaps with no possibility of any agreement on how to treat children before or after birth, perhaps with the exception of inflicting pain or mental abuse the rule should be that you can do anything you want with YOUR children and other people's children are just NONE of YOUR BUSINESS.
If you squander your heritage and make little monsters your gene line ends and we don't have to worry about you anymore. Your loss.
If you do everything for them you can the act is self rewarding. Your line goes on and becomes more numerous and richer.
Most people will try to seek their families advantage without being told. Those that don't - It is none of our business.
Cold hearted? Yeah
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 05:32:53 PM new
mezuzas- did anyone say a fetus could grow if not alive?
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 05:52:35 PM new
yellowstone- do you think that welfare mothers who continue to have 5,6 or 10 children should be told they have to have their tubes tied if they want to collect welfare?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 05:59:47 PM new
You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway. My answer is NO. You cannot interfere with reproduction in this country. We should have the funds for welfare.
It would not be my choice to have that many children but I know many large families that are happy.
Helen
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:05:56 PM new
Why is it that whenever hypothetical ethical issues involving life and death are raised here(such as the 9/11 Tolerance thread) that so many become confused, are unable to intelligently discuss, get hung up on semantics, and feel that things are not even worth being discussed. Many of these such issues I have raised here have been posed by members of the public on T.V.,radio shows and other chats. Despite strong feelings on both sides, they are intelligently debated. Here they are summarily dismissed or ridiculed except by a few. Sometimes it is possible to pose a question without having made up one's own mind yet the assumption is that the poser has taken a position.
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:09:04 PM new
Helenjw- It looks like you are responding to me but as you are on "IGNORE" you may want to spare others.
|
nycyn
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:12:02 PM new
>>Many of these such issues I have raised here have been posed by members of the public on T.V.,radio shows and other chats. Despite strong feelings on both sides, they are intelligently debated.<<
Um, perhaps they made informed, intelligent presentations. You want to abort somebody who is innocent until proven guilty for starters. You might as well make up a hypothetical scenerio, except at the moment I know I'm not that bored.
|
stusi
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:19:05 PM new
nycyn- who wants to abort somebody who is innocent until proven guilty? Did you see someone say that here? Did mezusas see any one say a fetus could grow if not alive? No, I don't think it is a problem with the presentation but rather with reading comprehension! Maybe you(and others) should read more carefully before responding.
|
nycyn
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:31:09 PM new
sigh...
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:32:09 PM new
stusi
YOU CAN READ MY COMMENTS BUT I'm on ignore?
I don't believe that being on your ignore means I can't communicate with others, stusi.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
STUSI ARE YOU OK?
|
yellowstone
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:35:23 PM new
Stushi
Go back and read the last line of my second post in this thread again.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:37:57 PM new
Shouldn't she be given a speedy trial and if found guilty be forced to abort the child? If she is not, she could kill this child at any time!
If it were up to me, I would not force the woman to get an abortion. The baby should definitely be removed from the mother's custody.
I am not sure that it is more ethical to kill an unborn child than a newborn.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 23, 2002 06:40:40 PM new
<stusi quote>
Helenjw- It looks like you are responding to me but as you are on "IGNORE" you may want to spare others.
<end quote>
Stusi based on your bizarre comments, maybe you should "spare" others....But then it's rather humourous so carry on. LOL!
Helen
|
