Ohh come on! You let your hatred of Bush color everything you think. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution of the women in question, it was a local issue. I don't know if the woman should be tried for murder but I can't believe that you're siding with her. She refused to have a c-section because she didn't want the scars (that's what she told the doctors at first, later she said it was because the procedure scared her). When you knowingly let a child die because you don't want a freaking scar something should happen to you. I know that your definition of child might be different than mine, but I think that in this case it was definately a child because it would have survived outside of the womb. I can't believe that you side with this women just so you have an opportunity to bash Bush (who again, had absolutely nothing to do with this).
This could just as well be titled Utah's choice for women and likewise would not imply any hatred for the people in Utah. She already had a C scar and was not the one who made that comment. The other twin was permanently taken from the mother and adopted out by decree of the Utah justice dept. When fundamental religious literalists look at this as an issue they point to a right to life and demand the mother be executed by law. Sick eh. When 50% of US and UK C sections are not necessary (a time saving device by doctors that also increase fees) a mothers right to choose surgury is a reasonable thing. I could provide numerous articles about this but apparently the facts or the issues involved is not in dispute. Only ad hominum attacks against the edtorial cartoonist. Of course they are entitled to their opinion without knowledge or facts but it is all sound and fury signifying nothing. I am sure people of child bearing age would have more valuable opinions anyway.
Of course, it would be interesting to hear the opinions of someone who's actually had a baby before, or at least someone with two X chromosomes ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
