Utah woman charged in stillbirth
It sounds bizarre: a woman who refused a Cesarean section has been charged in a stillbirth.
At the core is a very simple issue. At the core is also a very stupid and overly-complicated issue. The simple issue is one of ownership; in the abortion argument I hold that a woman owns her body and what takes place inside it. Regardless of how we judge Ms. Rowland's priorities, they are still her own, and frankly, I'm not surprised it's Utah. The stupid and overly-complicated issue is one of those "resorts for scoundrels." In the 1990s, for instance, when the Clinton administration infuriated Ken Starr by going after the nicotine-delivery industry, the campaign against smoking drove two oddly unstable prongs. First was questionable research by the EPA in support of what seems blatant. More vital to our issue today, however, was the expense society suffered as a result of smoking: higher insurance rates, lower workplace productivity ....
Well, let's think for a minute about the number of extraneous things people do that cost society in similar ways. Issues of scale can be argued, but I think they're irrelevant.
Let's start with me: I smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, eat bacon ... my entire diet is f@cked compared to normal people; new Atkins converts envy my diet. I live a high-stress life as a result of my partner specifically and unresolved issues on my part about how exactly one human being is supposed to relate to another under any given circumstances. Is a lack of couples' counseling an excuse for lowered productivity? For greater vice issues and resultant healthcare costs?
And that's before I hit the couch and start spelling it out.
If we pick on smokers for smoking, and Rep. Waxman has the audacity to claim that cigarettes are the #1 air polluter in L.A. County, what the hell is the excuse for all the non-carpooling SUV drivers around here? It took how long for justice to rise from an Indian mining disaster? What will we say to our corporate polluters? Will we charge them with murder?
There comes a point at which "personal accountability" is unpalatable, and as a side commentary, I think that's something the GOP-aligned moralists of the 1990s failed to understand. Whether it was Dan Quayle's "Brown Explosion" or the Oregon Citizens' Alliance bearing such a negative presence that the state GOP dissolved in order to save itself, people quite apparently and deliberately drew lines and said, "No, we are going to be human, and that means things get f@cked up every once in a while."
And while "personal accountability" was okay for cigarettes, it's unpalatable when people think of using organic food or driving fuel-efficient cars, or being humble enough to sit in front of a counselor and admit that the raving lunatic bitch sitting next to you has a point from time to time.
As Mr. Sikora suggests, this issue invokes "personal accountability" in a manner generally unpalatable ot most Americans.
Look, I have no polite words to describe someone whose vanity interferes with the best interests of twin children she chose to attempt to carry to term. My own partner has pointed out that in a pregnant, emotional state, such an opinion as Ms. Rowland is alleged to have expressed is not beyond comprehension.
(If anyone's done mushrooms with friends, you may have seen something similar. I once watched my girlfriend and my best friend politely and formally argue for over an hour about who got to hold what lighter. Really. Additionally, I might as well make use of this parenthetic space to note that in the case of my partner, her conditions for explaining Ms. Rowland's position, in part--that she thinks she said one thing while someone else thinks she said another--reflects more curiously on her. Saying different words than you intend to say and different words than you remember is a very curious and relevant suggestion in that high-stress standoff that is ... too much of my life.)
But whatever reasons, from the pathetic to the downright despicable, Ms. Rowland made her decision. And whether we look upon her sympathetically, dispassionately, or condemningly, we must remember that she is entitled to governance over her body and all that takes place therein.
I think of all the "innocent" ways people can be charged with murder if this prosecution wins its case. All else considered, this is still a dangerous precedent to set.
It sounds bizarre: a woman who refused a Cesarean section has been charged in a stillbirth.
I believe Sikora has pretty much summed up the question.
At the core is a very simple issue. At the core is also a very stupid and overly-complicated issue. The simple issue is one of ownership; in the abortion argument I hold that a woman owns her body and what takes place inside it. Regardless of how we judge Ms. Rowland's priorities, they are still her own, and frankly, I'm not surprised it's Utah. The stupid and overly-complicated issue is one of those "resorts for scoundrels." In the 1990s, for instance, when the Clinton administration infuriated Ken Starr by going after the nicotine-delivery industry, the campaign against smoking drove two oddly unstable prongs. First was questionable research by the EPA in support of what seems blatant. More vital to our issue today, however, was the expense society suffered as a result of smoking: higher insurance rates, lower workplace productivity ....
Well, let's think for a minute about the number of extraneous things people do that cost society in similar ways. Issues of scale can be argued, but I think they're irrelevant.
Let's start with me: I smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, eat bacon ... my entire diet is f@cked compared to normal people; new Atkins converts envy my diet. I live a high-stress life as a result of my partner specifically and unresolved issues on my part about how exactly one human being is supposed to relate to another under any given circumstances. Is a lack of couples' counseling an excuse for lowered productivity? For greater vice issues and resultant healthcare costs?
And that's before I hit the couch and start spelling it out.
If we pick on smokers for smoking, and Rep. Waxman has the audacity to claim that cigarettes are the #1 air polluter in L.A. County, what the hell is the excuse for all the non-carpooling SUV drivers around here? It took how long for justice to rise from an Indian mining disaster? What will we say to our corporate polluters? Will we charge them with murder?
There comes a point at which "personal accountability" is unpalatable, and as a side commentary, I think that's something the GOP-aligned moralists of the 1990s failed to understand. Whether it was Dan Quayle's "Brown Explosion" or the Oregon Citizens' Alliance bearing such a negative presence that the state GOP dissolved in order to save itself, people quite apparently and deliberately drew lines and said, "No, we are going to be human, and that means things get f@cked up every once in a while."
And while "personal accountability" was okay for cigarettes, it's unpalatable when people think of using organic food or driving fuel-efficient cars, or being humble enough to sit in front of a counselor and admit that the raving lunatic bitch sitting next to you has a point from time to time.
As Mr. Sikora suggests, this issue invokes "personal accountability" in a manner generally unpalatable ot most Americans.
Look, I have no polite words to describe someone whose vanity interferes with the best interests of twin children she chose to attempt to carry to term. My own partner has pointed out that in a pregnant, emotional state, such an opinion as Ms. Rowland is alleged to have expressed is not beyond comprehension.
(If anyone's done mushrooms with friends, you may have seen something similar. I once watched my girlfriend and my best friend politely and formally argue for over an hour about who got to hold what lighter. Really. Additionally, I might as well make use of this parenthetic space to note that in the case of my partner, her conditions for explaining Ms. Rowland's position, in part--that she thinks she said one thing while someone else thinks she said another--reflects more curiously on her. Saying different words than you intend to say and different words than you remember is a very curious and relevant suggestion in that high-stress standoff that is ... too much of my life.)
But whatever reasons, from the pathetic to the downright despicable, Ms. Rowland made her decision. And whether we look upon her sympathetically, dispassionately, or condemningly, we must remember that she is entitled to governance over her body and all that takes place therein.
I think of all the "innocent" ways people can be charged with murder if this prosecution wins its case. All else considered, this is still a dangerous precedent to set.
