It seems like the courts ruling that a woman has to submit to a c-section prior to the birth of her child would be inconsistent with the precedent of not holding women responsible for turning down a c-section after the fact. This is kind of confusing in the light of the precedent that was indicated by the case of the NJ woman who lost her parental rights.
Yes, well...women are public property, dontcha know?
The additionally horrible implications of situations like this is that legal standing is granted to fetuses thereby further strengthening the anti-choice agenda. "Oh, teh babeez need protecting from their evil mommies who are too incompetent to make teh complicated decisions!"
It seems like the courts ruling that a woman has to submit to a c-section prior to the birth of her child would be inconsistent with the precedent of not holding women responsible for turning down a c-section after the fact. This is kind of confusing in the light of the precedent that was indicated by the case of the NJ woman who lost her parental rights.
ReplyDeleteYes, well...women are public property, dontcha know?
ReplyDeleteThe additionally horrible implications of situations like this is that legal standing is granted to fetuses thereby further strengthening the anti-choice agenda. "Oh, teh babeez need protecting from their evil mommies who are too incompetent to make teh complicated decisions!"
Yeah, I think this sets a dangerous precedent and feeds pro-life ideology.
ReplyDelete