NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm guessing there's more coming with this story, and I'd imagine mental disability plays a significant part in it.

Edit: I fucking hate this time warp. I really wish my name weren't connected to this thread title.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/11220899/detail.html


Just sickening.

The Oakland Police Department is reporting that [bold]witnesses saw[bold/] the mother of a newborn baby found dead on a sidewalk Friday afternoon give birth on the sidewalk and walk away, leaving the newborn on the ground in a pool of blood.
And no one decided to adopt the newborn whom the mother obviously didn't want after seeing her give birth to it?! Heck why didn't someone call for an ambulance as soon as she fell on the ground in pain? That way it would have been born in a hospital where she would have had medical attention to prevent massive blood loss and the child would be placed in good hands? Society LET this happen!

The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood. An absolutely horrible story made somehow yet even more abhorrent by its' callous and indifferent execution.

Wow. Time for some Monty Python. I needs to cheer up.

The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood. An absolutely horrible story made somehow yet even more abhorrent by its' callous and indifferent execution.

Wow. Time for some Monty Python. I needs to cheer up.

Hey I have an idea to let some anger out on humanity, my IC nation wants to cause a massive genocide of people like this on earth (they're FT) want to join me in RP of a crusade against the ills of humanity?

When I see stuff like this I get pissed and fell like blowing up stuffs.

The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood. An absolutely horrible story made somehow yet even more abhorrent by its' callous and indifferent execution.

Wow. Time for some Monty Python. I needs to cheer up.

And if it turns out that she has the brain capacity of a six year old and was sexually abused, might that change your opinion? Jeez--talk about a fucking rush to judgment. In another time, I presume you'd be the one with the rope leading the charge to the jail to mete out some vigilante justice.

And if it turns out that she has the brain capacity of a six year old and was sexually abused, might that change your opinion? Jeez--talk about a fucking rush to judgment. In another time, I presume you'd be the one with the rope leading the charge to the jail to mete out some vigilante justice.

Fix her so she can no longer bear children then force her to wear a t-shirt that says "I murder newborn babies" everyday to remind her of her sins...

Fix her so she can no longer bear children then force her to wear a t-shirt that says "I murder newborn babies" everyday to remind her of her sins...

Even if she's incapable of understanding what she did? Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person.

And if it turns out that she has the brain capacity of a six year old and was sexually abused, might that change your opinion? Jeez--talk about a fucking rush to judgment. In another time, I presume you'd be the one with the rope leading the charge to the jail to mete out some vigilante justice.


Talk about a rush to judgement..... yeesh. Hows about a little practice what you preach? Yes, Nazz, IF she turns out to have the intellectual agility of a small soap dish, that obviously changes things. That opinion was stated on the basic concept that this was just simply a cruel and callous waste of free oxygen (but reasonably intelligent person) that committed this atrocity.

Any more "what if" scenarios you wish you expound? Hmmm?

This sort of thing used to happen all the time, everywhere, and probably still happens quite often in many places. Is it sickening? Yeah, of course.
Where? When? I'd surely like to know, because that's news to me.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/11220899/detail.html


Just sickening.

This sort of thing used to happen all the time, everywhere, and probably still happens quite often in many places. Is it sickening? Yeah, of course.

Talk about a rush to judgement..... yeesh. Hows about a little practice what you preach? Yes, Nazz, IF she turns out to have the intellectual agility of a small soap dish, that obviously changes things. That opinion was stated on the basic concept that this was just simply a cruel and callous waste of free oxygen (but reasonably intelligent person) that committed this atrocity.

Any more "what if" scenarios you wish you expound? Hmmm?

Tell me something. Which seems to you to be more likely--that she's a monstrous human being, or that she's damaged in some way? Which one? A rush to judgment is when you make a judgment based on incomplete knowledge. I'm making no judgment here--I'm saying that not all the facts are in and maybe, just maybe, we ought to wait a bit before consigning her to the pits of hell. After all, this isn't normal behavior, so chances are there's more to the story.

Hey I have an idea to let some anger out on humanity, my IC nation wants to cause a massive genocide of people like this on earth (they're FT) want to join me in RP of a crusade against the ills of humanity?

When I see stuff like this I get pissed and fell like blowing up stuffs.

That's a good idea. I'll go role-play, too, that will teach them.

Tell me something. Which seems to you to be more likely--that she's a monstrous human being, or that she's damaged in some way? Which one? A rush to judgment is when you make a judgment based on incomplete knowledge. I'm making no judgment here--I'm saying that not all the facts are in and maybe, just maybe, we ought to wait a bit before consigning her to the pits of hell. After all, this isn't normal behavior, so chances are there's more to the story.

That she's a monstrous human being, of course. Though, granted, not enough information is divulged in the article to make an very adequate determination of that notion. Just call it a hunch. Admit it, Nazz. We live in a world where this kind of atrocity is all too common. Not all travesties of justice are performed by mental defectives. There are such things as human monstrers. They exist.

Your rush to judgement that I referred to was automatically assuming that I would be front row center with a length of rope, a pile of dry kindling, and a can of charcoal lighting fluid preparing for the praise Lord Jesus Hallelujah Memorial Bonfire bringing the recalcitrant sinners to their proper and just eternal sendoff.

I don't see what the big deal is. When the Greeks didn't want a child they just dropped it off in the woods and let fate handle things.

Blame god. *nods head*

The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood.
Is there no connection in your mind for the abhorrence you feel at this story, and the abhorrent statements you make in response to the story?

Cognitive dissonance, much?

That's a good idea. I'll go role-play, too, that will teach them.

rise against the oppression comrade! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12415265#post12415265) :)

rise against the oppression comrade! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12415265#post12415265) :)

Looks awesome. I'm sure reading our exploits will deter this sort of behavior in the future.

Looks awesome. I'm sure reading our exploits will deter this sort of behavior in the future.

Let us march forward, pillage and burn all those who hurt society. TO WAR!!!! :mp5:

Is there no connection in your mind for the abhorrence you feel at this story, and the abhorrent statements you make in response to the story?

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Um, not really. Just because I might possibly harbor a desire to burn my neighbor alive just because I don't like the way his bush overgrows onto MY yard doesn't mean I an actually going to do so, or even to tell Joe Blow at the Quickee Mart that I might do so.

Apples and oranges.

Isn't that part of the reason why we all all here? The whole offerance of an opinion behind our protective cloak of anonymity? Would you stand up and proudly, in the face of many people, state an opinion that you know would be taken in an overtly hostile manner? Because, in this case, you most likely would be. Most everyone you will talk to about this little tidbit will respond in much the same way.

Um, not really. Just because I might possibly harbor a desire to burn my neighbor alive just because I don’t like the way his bush overgrows onto MY yard doesn’t mean I an actually going to do so, or even to tell Joe Blow at the Quickee Mart that I might do so.

Apples and oranges.

Isn’t that part of the reason why we all all here? The whole offerance of an opinion behind our protective cloak of anonymity? Would you stand up and proudly, in the face of many people, state an opinion that you know would be taken in an overtly hostile manner? Because, in this case, you most likely would be. Most everyone you will talk to about this little tidbit will respond in much the same way.
Then those people are what one less enlightened as myself would call cunts.

Personally I’m not here to push out views I would be scared of repeating in a less anonymous setting. I would happily defend and discuss any statement I have posted here. Frankly, I find any other reality a rather sad mode of existence.

I'm more interested in the witnesses. If they were sound of mind enough to give testimonies, they would certainly have been sound enough to know that one just doesn't leave newborns lying around in a pool of blood, or for that matter, a pregnant woman about to give birth, without at least calling in some sort of medical attention.

It's a sad, sad society that lets people just flop down dead and not do a thing in times of peace.

Thats what I said.

Even if she's incapable of understanding what she did? Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person.

I'm more interested in the witnesses. If they were sound of mind enough to give testimonies, they would certainly have been sound enough to know that one just doesn't leave newborns lying around in a pool of blood, or for that matter, a pregnant woman about to give birth, without at least calling in some sort of medical attention.

It's a sad, sad society that lets people just flop down dead and not do a thing in times of peace.

That she's a monstrous human being, of course. Though, granted, not enough information is divulged in the article to make an very adequate determination of that notion. Just call it a hunch. Admit it, Nazz. We live in a world where this kind of atrocity is all too common. Not all travesties of justice are performed by mental defectives. There are such things as human monstrers. They exist.

Fortunately we have a whole justice system based around the "innocent until proven guilty" concept to determine if that is the case here or not.

How long does a birth normally take? There were witnesses on the scene who did not assist the woman, called an ambulance, or looked how the newborn was doing? If the woman did indeed not have the intellectual capacity for this, then at least one of the witnesses should have had.

Fortunately we have a whole justice system based around the "innocent until proven guilty" concept to determine if that is the case here or not.I though the justice system was based on "who has the most expensive lawyer"...

http://www.ktvu.com/news/11220899/detail.html


Just sickening.Apparently you've never heard of a miscarriage?

The article doesn't say anything except that the woman walked away. After having a miscarriage in public... I might expect a woman to have under gone some fairly heavy trauma and be in shock. And there is nothing say that the baby survived the birth, or that it did and then died. There is nothing about what stage the pregnancy had reached. But if the woman was able to give birth so quickly then I can't imagine the baby was healthy. Births normally take hours, not minutes.

You really shouldn't judge when you know so few details.

Infact, anyone who thinks this woman should be charged with homocide should do some reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth
The duration of labour varies widely, but averages some 13 hours for women giving birth to their first child ("primiparae") and 8 hours for women who have already given birth.Are you going to tell me this woman was standing around on the sidewalk for a couple of hours in pretty intense pain and no one called an ambulance?

It's so painfully obvious that she had a miscarriage that it's not funny.

If it's sickening.. I'm not going to read it.

Hey .. about the time warp thing.. i noticed my post was the same time my PC had.. start checking your pc time when it warps. could it be picking up all our individual pc times?

Apparently you've never heard of a miscarriage?

The article doesn't say anything except that the woman walked away. After having a miscarriage in public... I might expect a woman to have under gone some fairly heavy trauma and be in shock. And there is nothing say that the baby survived the birth, or that it did and then died. There is nothing about what stage the pregnancy had reached. But if the woman was able to give birth so quickly then I can't imagine the baby was healthy. Births normally take hours, not minutes.

You really shouldn't judge when you know so few details.

Infact, anyone who thinks this woman should be charged with homocide should do some reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth
Are you going to tell me this woman was standing around on the sidewalk for a couple of hours in pretty intense pain and no one called an ambulance?

It's so painfully obvious that she had a miscarriage that it's not funny.

I was just fixing to point out the same thing.
Some people really do need to read the article.

And if the woman is charged with murder..then what..that would make the witnesses accessories to murder,since they saw this going on and did nothing.

Why all this anger and outrage? It's a sad story, but nothing strongly suggests that that punishment is in order as her mental state is unknown and the baby was found without an umbilical cord...

Time will tell about her, but some people need to chill out right about now.

I await news of her no doubt serious mental problems. I don't see how someone in their right mind could give birth to a baby in the middle of the street and just run off.

I found the original article sparse on information and the article on childbirth helps make the situation make more sense. It doesn't sound like she actually gave birth, but rather like she miscarried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage).

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks. Miscarriages are the most common complication of pregnancy.

Miscarrying can cause severe trauma in women and it can last minutes, hours or months. It varies.

It might explain why she walked off.

After all, the article didn't say that the baby was indeed alive, and why none of the witnesses came to the woman's or for that matter the infant's help.

Where? When? I'd surely like to know, because that's news to me.
China.
Maybe not 'on the sidewalk and leaving it', but certainly can and still happen in public toilets and the such like.

And if it turns out that she has the brain capacity of a six year old and was sexually abused, might that change your opinion? Jeez--talk about a fucking rush to judgment. In another time, I presume you'd be the one with the rope leading the charge to the jail to mete out some vigilante justice.

Nope. What a fucking cop-out. Insanity, "psychological illness" is a bunch of bullshit. People need to grow up and quit blaming their problems on the past. They need to make something of themselves and become better, or die and save us their pathetic excuses.

I await news of her no doubt serious mental problems. I don't see how someone in their right mind could give birth to a baby in the middle of the street and just run off.

And this makes it acceptable?

Nope. What a fucking cop-out. Insanity, "psychological illness" is a bunch of bullshit. People need to grow up and quit blaming their problems on the past. They need to make something of themselves and become better, or die and save us their pathetic excuses.

And your evidence for such an assertion, Doctor?

Insanity, "psychological illness" is a bunch of bullshit.

Yes, yes, yes, and numerous chapters on psychological warfare in the CIA are all rubbish too. Insanity is something that is quite real, and quite scarring. In fact, I have some interesting ideas as how to fracture a person's mind beyond recovery.

Would you like to prove me wrong? As a test subject perhaps?

This shouldn't be a legitimate medical issue. It is a weakness in people that has caused our society to digres so far as to excuse behavior because someone finds out that they were "traumatized" or are "insane." Why should we let these people live, if this is the case? Instead of responding rationally, we let these people get off scotch free when by virtue of their being "mentally ill" requires they be punished and kept away from society.

Okay, so you have no evidence, and are nothing more than a snot-nosed punk. Gotcha.

And your evidence for such an assertion, Doctor?

This shouldn't be a legitimate medical issue. It is a weakness in people that has caused our society to digres so far as to excuse behavior because someone finds out that they were "traumatized" or are "insane." Why should we let these people live, if this is the case? Instead of responding rationally, we let these people get off scotch free when by virtue of their being "mentally ill" requires they be punished and kept away from society.

Yes, yes, yes, and numerous chapters on psychological warfare in the CIA are all rubbish too. Insanity is something that is quite real, and quite scarring. In fact, I have some interesting ideas as how to fracture a person's mind beyond recovery.

Would you like to prove me wrong? As a test subject perhaps?

Using insanity as an excuse for one's actions is bollocks. If you are insane, what the hell is society doing to keep you away from things and people you might harm? Instead of punishing and ostracizing, we excuse their actions. Mental capacity shouldn't be factored into the equation; only the action that was committed.

Okay, so you have no evidence, and are nothing more than a snot-nosed punk. Gotcha.

HAHAHAH! You're weakness is hilarious.

Nope. What a fucking cop-out. Insanity, "psychological illness" is a bunch of bullshit. People need to grow up and quit blaming their problems on the past. They need to make something of themselves and become better, or die and save us their pathetic excuses.
Is this your informed medical opinion, doctor?
And this makes it acceptable?

No, it doens't 'make' it anything. It explains it.

This shouldn't be a legitimate medical issue. It is a weakness in people that has caused our society to digres so far as to excuse behavior because someone finds out that they were "traumatized" or are "insane." Why should we let these people live, if this is the case? Instead of responding rationally, we let these people get off scotch free when by virtue of their being "mentally ill" requires they be punished and kept away from society.
Why shouldn't it be?
If the person is so far removed from reality they honestly cannot see that their actions are morally (and legally) wrong, then why shouldn't this be used as an explanation for, and defence against, their actions?

And, pray tell, what do you mean by getting off scot free? (scot btw, not scotch - the whisky's gone straight to your head;) )
If found not guilty by reason of insanity they are then locked away in a mental institution until deemed fit enough for society.
And before you rush in claiming that they'll be out in a matter of weeks, if not days, the assesment is extremely rigorous and peer-reviewed among a committee of doctors (not just one). Generally most are locked up for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison had they been full guilty.

Also, if they are mentally incompetent to stand trial and cannot understand why and what they've done, how is punishing them going to do anything?
Punishing them for behaviour they might be unaware they've done, or cannot comprehend what they've done, is cruel and unusual. Hardly a mark of a civilised society.

This shouldn't be a legitimate medical issue. It is a weakness in people that has caused our society to digres so far as to excuse behavior because someone finds out that they were "traumatized" or are "insane." Why should we let these people live, if this is the case? Instead of responding rationally, we let these people get off scotch free when by virtue of their being "mentally ill" requires they be punished and kept away from society.

Give me a T! T!
Give me an R! R!
Give me an O! O!
Give me an L! L!
Give me another L! L!

Put it all together and what does that spell?

TROLL!


This has been a message by the Troll Identification Squad.

Using insanity as an excuse for one's actions is bollocks. If you are insane, what the hell is society doing to keep you away from things and people you might harm? Instead of punishing and ostracizing, we excuse their actions. Mental capacity shouldn't be factored into the equation; only the action that was committed.

No, no, no. No running away little man. You specifically said that insanity was rubbish. Thereby, you do not believe a condition such as insanity exists. Thereby, to prove me wrong, you will be subjected to numerous experiments designed to induce insanity at levels beyond repair.

If you come out of it sane, then you have proven me wrong and that insanity does not exist. If you come out insane, then I am right, and you would no longer care anyway.

EDIT: Additionally, it would prove that you are simply too weak to survive as part of the herd, and you would have done the community a service by removing yourself from society.

HAHAHAH! You're weakness is hilarious.

1. That makes no sense, either in context or out of context.
2. http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5809/187ch2.jpg

I though the justice system was based on "who has the most expensive lawyer"...

No, that is a consequence, not a basis ;)

Give me a T! T!
Give me an R! R!
Give me an O! O!
Give me an L! L!
Give me another L! L!

Put it all together and what does that spell?

TROLL!


This has been a message by the Troll Identification Squad.

Good job. Your contribution to the discussion has been noted.

Good job. Your contribution to the discussion has been noted.

Just doin' my job. :)

Using insanity as an excuse for one's actions is bollocks. If you are insane, what the hell is society doing to keep you away from things and people you might harm? Instead of punishing and ostracizing, we excuse their actions. Mental capacity shouldn't be factored into the equation; only the action that was committed.

How far does this stance go ?
Suppose I inject you with some drugs that cause hallucinations. Should you be found guilty of any crimes committed in that state ?

Where? When? I'd surely like to know, because that's news to me.

There are places in the world where this is a likely fate for newborn girls; however it makes it no less abhorrent and insane.

No, no, no. No running away little man. You specifically said that insanity was rubbish. Thereby, you do not believe a condition such as insanity exists. Thereby, to prove me wrong, you will be subjected to numerous experiments designed to induce insanity at levels beyond repair.

If you come out of it sane, then you have proven me wrong and that insanity does not exist. If you come out insane, then I am right, and you would no longer care anyway.

EDIT: Additionally, it would prove that you are simply too weak to survive as part of the herd, and you would have done the community a service by removing yourself from society.

Fine. Insanity is rubbish.

What do we label as insanity?

Behavior outside the norm, usually in the extreme.

Who do we label as insane?

Those who do things beyond the generally accepted social spectrum of activity.

Before I get accuse of a strawman, I ask that you answer those two questions to your satisfaction, and then I will proceed.

I'm more interested in the witnesses. If they were sound of mind enough to give testimonies, they would certainly have been sound enough to know that one just doesn't leave newborns lying around in a pool of blood, or for that matter, a pregnant woman about to give birth, without at least calling in some sort of medical attention.

It's a sad, sad society that lets people just flop down dead and not do a thing in times of peace.

SInce they had witnesses, and they caught the mother blocks away, perhaps they DID report it immediately?

How far does this stance go ?
Suppose I inject you with some drugs that cause hallucinations. Should you be found guilty of any crimes committed in that state ?

Absolutely. I committed them, they are my fault, they are my actions. Who else am I to blame?

Using insanity as an excuse for one's actions is bollocks. If you are insane, what the hell is society doing to keep you away from things and people you might harm? Instead of punishing and ostracizing, we excuse their actions.
We don't punish and ostracise people with mental disorders?
ROFL.
How I wished I lived in your odd little world, where people with mental illnesses are welcomed into society.
except of course they ain't welcomed into your odd little world are they? Your rants here show just how much you hate and fear them.

Mental capacity shouldn't be factored into the equation; only the action that was committed.
In that case, do you agree then that children should be held responsible for their actions and treated as adults in the eyes of the law?
Notice: I said 'Children', not teenagers.
To give you an example:
If a 4yr-old found a loaded gun, and in playing with it shot and killed someone do you think they should be tried and sentenced in identical fashion to a 24yr old doing the same?

Fine. Insanity is rubbish.

What do we label as insanity?

Behavior outside the norm, usually in the extreme.

Who do we label as insane?

Those who do things beyond the generally accepted social spectrum of activity.

Before I get accuse of a strawman, I ask that you answer those two questions to your satisfaction, and then I will proceed.

Not insanity. Sorry. You fail.

Indeed. That's a hot teach, though.

Tell me, what purpose does it serve to resort to an ad hominem so early in debate?

It shows a lot about you, how you react when posed with a less than agreeable situation.

Less than agreeable situation? What you posted had no relevance to anything.

Fine. Insanity is rubbish.

What do we label as insanity?

Behavior outside the norm, usually in the extreme.

Who do we label as insane?

Those who do things beyond the generally accepted social spectrum of activity.

Before I get accuse of a strawman, I ask that you answer those two questions to your satisfaction, and then I will proceed.
You're missing something. Why are those people insane?
Absolutely. I committed them, they are my fault, they are my actions. Who else am I to blame?
That's a very strange stance to take.
Strange hypothetical:
You were rendered unconscious somehow. A rolled up newspaper was placed in your hand and was used(while still in your hand) to bop someone on the head in a comical manner. Are you responsible for the head bopping which just occured?

Absolutely. I committed them, they are my fault, they are my actions. Who else am I to blame?

Well me obviously - since I was the one injecting you.
But at least your reasoning so far is consistent. Odd, but consistent.

1. That makes no sense, either in context or out of context.
2. http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5809/187ch2.jpg

Indeed. That's a hot teach, though.

Tell me, what purpose does it serve to resort to an ad hominem so early in debate?

It shows a lot about you, how you react when posed with a less than agreeable situation.

Read the last sentence, oh weak one.

I did. It's just an attempt by you to weasel out of being called on your strawmen.

Well me obviously - since I was the one injecting you.
But at least your reasoning so far is consistent. Odd, but consistent.

Blame you? It's unprovable that you caused me to do those actions. If anything, it was my body's response to the hallucinogens that caused my actions; although cause is irrelevant when discussing a past action. it happened. That's really all that matters.

Not insanity. Sorry. You fail.

Read the last sentence, oh weak one.

Just doin' my job. :)

Well, it's a dirty job, which is why I'm glad it's you and not me. ;)

Blame you? It's unprovable that you caused me to do those actions. If anything, it was my body's response to the hallucinogens that caused my actions; although cause is irrelevant when discussing a past action. it happened. That's really all that matters.

So "intent" is not a factor for you, just "result" ?
Hmm. I am intruiged. Does this moral system work in real life ?

What do we label as insanity?

Behavior outside the norm, usually in the extreme.


It is a little more than that. Complete abandonment of all rationality and loss of the ability to make similarly rational decisions.

No, it doesn't mean if you're all emotional and punch someone because your angry you're insane. A telling factor of insanity is that the subject is generally unaware of their actions.


Who do we label as insane?


See above.


Before I get accuse of a strawman, I ask that you answer those two questions to your satisfaction, and then I will proceed.

I've never claimed the use of the insanity defense was allowable, however, you claimed that insanity is bullshit, meaning a condition that does not exist in your view.

As such, it is only appropriate that we see if you can be turned insane to prove who is correct. You would not accept another subject as you would claim it to be weak and thereby, unfitting of existing. However, to make such a claim, you must surely believe you are strong enough not to suffer from this condition you deny exists. A logical paradox, but we'll ignore that for the time being.

If you can be turned insane, it would disprove your assertion completely. If not, it would vindicate you.

Well, it's a dirty job, which is why I'm glad it's you and not me. ;)

So you'd rather be a troll than identify one? Interesting...

Read the last sentence, oh weak one.
You shouldn't flame.
Blame you? It's unprovable that you caused me to do those actions. If anything, it was my body's response to the hallucinogens that caused my actions; although cause is irrelevant when discussing a past action. it happened. That's really all that matters.

It is provable that you were injected with hallucinogens, and thus not in proper control of your own actions.

SInce they had witnesses, and they caught the mother blocks away, perhaps they DID report it immediately?

Maybe, maybe not. You are correct though. There is insufficient information to make a fully rational judgment regarding either witness or mother.

We don't punish and ostracise people with mental disorders?
ROFL.
How I wished I lived in your odd little world, where people with mental illnesses are welcomed into society.
except of course they ain't welcomed into your odd little world are they? Your rants here show just how much you hate and fear them.

They aren't welcomed into society, but their condition is used as an excuse. Not acceptable.

No they are not; Fear them? No. Detest them for their weakness, and society's weakness that they are excused.

In that case, do you agree then that children should be held responsible for their actions and treated as adults in the eyes of the law?
Notice: I said 'Children', not teenagers.
To give you an example:
If a 4yr-old found a loaded gun, and in playing with it shot and killed someone do you think they should be tried and sentenced in identical fashion to a 24yr old doing the same?

Yes. Both committed an act, murder, and should be tried and sentenced in the same fashion.

Although children can be assumed to not possess the knowledge of what not to do, but it hardly changes the act. And it is the act which is met with justice.

So "intent" is not a factor for you, just "result" ?
Hmm. I am intruiged. Does this moral system work in real life ?

Yes, just result. And for me, it does work; I hold myself accountable for my actions. Honour is of utmost important, and with that come the stringent rules of integrity. Sadly, I cannot say the same of the large portion of society.

Your moral system hurts my brain. Trying a four year old as an adult for murder? I can see the words, but it just won't make sense.

Even if she's incapable of understanding what she did? Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person.

Well, look no further than the OP, Nazz... C--K seems to revel in this sort of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit.

I'm guessing there's more coming with this story, and I'd imagine mental disability plays a significant part in it.

No fucking kidding.

Your moral system hurts my brain. Trying a four year old as an adult for murder? I can see the words, but it just won't make sense.

I think it might be Aramaic rendered in the 26-letter Roman alphabet.

You shouldn't flame.

Perhaps not. The responses of CthulhuFhtagn are less than saintly, but that is no excuse for my action.

It is provable that you were injected with hallucinogens, and thus not in proper control of your own actions.

Oh I was in control. Just in a different state of control, one that is not my normal control, but my control nonetheless.

It is a little more than that. Complete abandonment of all rationality and loss of the ability to make similarly rational decisions.

Of course. And who defines what is rational?

No, it doesn't mean if you're all emotional and punch someone because your angry you're insane. A telling factor of insanity is that the subject is generally unaware of their actions.

Unaware? That is a completely subjective definition.





I've never claimed the use of the insanity defense was allowable, however, you claimed that insanity is bullshit, meaning a condition that does not exist in your view.

Indeed it doesn't.

As such, it is only appropriate that we see if you can be turned insane to prove who is correct. You would not accept another subject as you would claim it to be weak and thereby, unfitting of existing. However, to make such a claim, you must surely believe you are strong enough not to suffer from this condition you deny exists. A logical paradox, but we'll ignore that for the time being.

If you can be turned insane, it would disprove your assertion completely. If not, it would vindicate you.

It's only a paradox because you see this "experiment" as the only way to prove that insanity doesn't exist. It is first of all a flawed conception, because it allows for a substantial amount of subjectivity. I being the only subject, how are you to measure what is actually insane? Is it not through a subconscious comparison with social normatives? Insanity doesn't exist. It is only a perception of behavior that is different, and by subjective comparison irrational. So to society as a whole, insanity exists as a different state that is not, by society's definitions, rational; when in fact "insanity" is simply a different state of rationality. Perception of rationality is rationality. Comparison only furthers subjective measurement.

So you'd rather be a troll than identify one? Interesting...

Only through implication.

Troll hijacks bilgewater thread and gives birth all over it. Will C--K adopt it in time before it expires on the sidewalk in a pool of its' own blood?

Strange hypothetical:
You were rendered unconscious somehow. A rolled up newspaper was placed in your hand and was used(while still in your hand) to bop someone on the head in a comical manner. Are you responsible for the head bopping which just occured?

"Responsibility" assumes control. Being unconscious, I had no conscious control over my body. My hand was in fact forced--I had no control, not even an altered state of control. So I am not in fact responsible for the action. Consciousness is required to assume responsibility.

*sigh* since it's not, apparently, clear:

To the OP, yes the act was reprehensible and should be punished accordingly.

Oh, go start a blog somewhere before you make with the rolling-eye emotes already. You're just not interesting enough to properly mount a thread-jack, PP.

Troll hijacks bilgewater thread and gives birth all over it. Will C--K adopt it in time before it expires on the sidewalk in a pool of its' own blood?

*sigh* since it's not, apparently, clear:

To the OP, yes the act was reprehensible and should be punished accordingly.

The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood.

Ooh, ooh, I have a better idea, let's do that, but to all the people who watched it happen and apparently did nothing.

Yes, just result. And for me, it does work; I hold myself accountable for my actions. Honour is of utmost important, and with that come the stringent rules of integrity. Sadly, I cannot say the same of the large portion of society.

Does this work both ways ?
Example: should someone who attempted a heinous act but failed be punished according to you?
Example 2: should someone who unintentionally performs a good deed be praised ?
Example 3: should someone who accidentally performs a good deed while trying (and failing) to commit a heinous act be praised ?

Does this work both ways ?
Example: should someone who attempted a heinous act but failed be punished according to you?
Example 2: should someone who unintentionally performs a good deed be praised ?
Example 3: should someone who accidentally performs a good deed while trying (and failing) to commit a heinous act be praised ?

1: No, the act was never committed. Unless you want to draw a mutually exclusive line and label "intent" as "action" and treat it as such, there is no conceivable way to punish someone for an attempt.

2. Yes, of course

3. Which act did he commit, actually? Circumstances matter only in observation, never in judgment.

Ooh, ooh, I have a better idea, let's do that, but to all the people who watched it happen and apparently did nothing.

How is this justifiable? They did nothing. Was it their responsibility? No, they did not commit the act. Should they have done something? Perhaps, but it is hardly a requirement. And then there is the scale of the operation--how can it be proven that someone was, indeed, a witness, and be punished for not doing anything?

Oh, go start a blog somewhere before you make with the rolling-eye emotes already. You're just not interesting enough to properly mount a thread-jack, PP.

Thanks. ;)

3. Which act did he commit, actually? Circumstances matter only in observation, never in judgment.

He committed the good one, but is depressed about that ;)

You hold an intruiging life philosophy.

How is this justifiable? They did nothing. Was it their responsibility? No, they did not commit the act. Should they have done something? Perhaps, but it is hardly a requirement. And then there is the scale of the operation--how can it be proven that someone was, indeed, a witness, and be punished for not doing anything?

I don't advocate punishing anyone for this, but I have to question the judgment shown by the people who saw a woman give birth to a baby, leave it in a pool of blood in the middle of street, and didn't see how this could possibly be strange or harmful. I mean, I know it's generally not a good idea to get involved in someone else's problems because you could get sued, but this is just beyond absurd.

China.
Maybe not 'on the sidewalk and leaving it', but certainly can and still happen in public toilets and the such like.

Familiy Guy says it best, as usual :) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UH0DzLfF9o&mode=related&search=)

Nope. What a fucking cop-out. Insanity, "psychological illness" is a bunch of bullshit.
*sigh*

No, it isn't.

*Doesn't waste any further energy*

I think it's time to abort this sorry excuse for a thread. I and my friend, Google News, bring you a more up to date story of this woman who gave birth on the sidewalk.

Important facts listed in article According to Oakland homicide Sgt. Tony Jones, who interviewed her at the hospital Friday night, the woman said little. "She told me she suffered from amnesia. She remembered having the baby, but she couldn't remember her name or anything else," he said. Jones said Oakland Fire Department paramedics at the scene thought the baby was about five months along. - do you get it? She had a mis-fucking-carriage! Her jeans were covered in blood, and without being asked, she told Cabral she had had a miscarriage, police said Until the autopsy is completed, the woman is being held on suspicion of murder. But that may be a technicality.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16881992.htm

They aren't welcomed into society, but their condition is used as an excuse. Not acceptable.
So you keep stating (in various forms), what you have not done is substantiate why. Until then, I dont see why you would expect anyone to take your assertion seriously.

No they are not; Fear them? No. Detest them for their weakness, and society's weakness that they are excused.
Wow, great demonstration of biggotry. Dont let the fact that the overwhelming majority of those with mental illness, intellectual impairments or who are otherwise psychologically or neurologically atypical, dont ever commit any crime, get in the way of your irrational denegration of this particular group of people.

Yes. Both committed an act, murder, and should be tried and sentenced in the same fashion.
I dont agree that they did both commit murder, and I dont agree they should be tried and sentenced in the same way any more than I think a competent adult human who bites someone and a dog who bites someone should be tried and sentenced in the same fashion.

Although children can be assumed to not possess the knowledge of what not to do, but it hardly changes the act. And it is the act which is met with justice.
You are wrong. You might wish that the law only addressed actual acts (and possibility even ommisions) but that isnt the case and stating your wishes as though they were fact rather than contrary to it, does nothing for your credibility.

I say its the society's fault and her fault. It seems to me America just LOVES to let tragedies happen.:headbang: :mad:

riiiiiiight

riiiiiiight

Well then how come when its blatantly obvious something bad is going to happen people in America who have been assigned to prevent some things to happen only act when the situation is serious or when the tragedy already happened? huh? Arthais, stop hunting around for my posts just to flame me or I WILL report you. This is getting annoying.

What tragedy?

What tragedy?

nvm, I didn't read the previous post, if it was a miscarriage it wasn't murder because it died inside her so her body naturally made it come out to prevent infection.

If she remembers giving birth than she certainly should have done more than walk away afterward. Even if she really has amnesia I don't see how one can get around that minor fact. If she really does have it and isn't simply lying for fear of punishment.

Maybe she knew it was a miscarriage or that it was dead. After reading that other article I suspect something happened to her that caused her to have amnesia and then have a miscarriage. Something was done to her methinks. But still, somebody should have called for a medic or at least checked on the child, not everybody knows what a five month fetus looks like so I would imagine somebody would think it was a fully developed one and check on it rather than leaving it there. If this situation was the way we originally anticipated then the society would be guilty for letting this happen. With people like that who knows what they will let happen next.

I think it's time to abort this sorry excuse for a thread. I and my friend, Google News, bring you a more up to date story of this woman who gave birth on the sidewalk.

Important facts listed in article According to Oakland homicide Sgt. Tony Jones, who interviewed her at the hospital Friday night, the woman said little. "She told me she suffered from amnesia. She remembered having the baby, but she couldn't remember her name or anything else," he said. Jones said Oakland Fire Department paramedics at the scene thought the baby was about five months along. - do you get it? She had a mis-fucking-carriage! Her jeans were covered in blood, and without being asked, she told Cabral she had had a miscarriage, police said Until the autopsy is completed, the woman is being held on suspicion of murder. But that may be a technicality.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16881992.htm

If she remembers giving birth than she certainly should have done more than walk away afterward. Even if she really has amnesia I don't see how one can get around that minor fact. If she really does have it and isn't simply lying for fear of punishment.

And no one decided to adopt the newborn whom the mother obviously didn't want after seeing her give birth to it?! Heck why didn't someone call for an ambulance as soon as she fell on the ground in pain? That way it would have been born in a hospital where she would have had medical attention to prevent massive blood loss and the child would be placed in good hands? Society LET this happen!

True. If I saw a woman give birth on the sidewalk and then leave the baby I'd call an ambulance and then try to take care of the baby. Can't blame the mother completely on the childs death. But yes, she's an asshole.

True. If I saw a woman give birth on the sidewalk and then leave the baby I'd call an ambulance and then try to take care of the baby. Can't blame the mother completely on the childs death. But yes, she's an asshole.

It was already dead. It was a bloody miscarriage.

It was already dead. It was a bloody miscarriage.

There is no point to arguing... she was obviously on her way to the nearest disco tech to get preggers again and figured she'd have a better chance of getting laid if she just pushed out the inconvenience which was growing inside of her. Some sort of militant feminazi or something.

I think it's time to abort this sorry excuse for a thread. I and my friend, Google News, bring you a more up to date story of this woman who gave birth on the sidewalk.

Important facts listed in article According to Oakland homicide Sgt. Tony Jones, who interviewed her at the hospital Friday night, the woman said little. "She told me she suffered from amnesia. She remembered having the baby, but she couldn't remember her name or anything else," he said. Jones said Oakland Fire Department paramedics at the scene thought the baby was about five months along. - do you get it? She had a mis-fucking-carriage! Her jeans were covered in blood, and without being asked, she told Cabral she had had a miscarriage, police said Until the autopsy is completed, the woman is being held on suspicion of murder. But that may be a technicality.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16881992.htm

Damn you and your facts! :mad:

She couldn't know that for sure. It was her kid anyway, she just walks away and leaves the kid on the sidewalk?

If you ejected a five month old fetus from your innards in a pool of your own blood, you might be a wee bit disoriented too. :nod:

How is this justifiable? They did nothing.
Bingo.

Was it their responsibility? No, they did not commit the act.
If you want to be brutal and stupid, it is only fair to do it in a brutal and stupid way. How is it justifiable to do it to the woman?

It was already dead. It was a bloody miscarriage.

She couldn't know that for sure. It was her kid anyway, she just walks away and leaves the kid on the sidewalk?

She couldn't know that for sure. It was her kid anyway, she just walks away and leaves the kid on the sidewalk?

If she had a mother instinct she'd mourn for it a bit or something. If it lived for the whole nine months God knows what she could have done to it.

If you ejected a five month old fetus from your innards in a pool of your own blood, you might be a wee bit disoriented too. :nod:

So disoriented that she immediately forgets what happens and walks off? Somehow I don't think so. I'd lean more to that she didn't give a damn.

If she had a mother instinct she'd mourn for it a bit or something. If it lived for the whole nine months God knows what she could have done to it.

*nods*

She'd at least stick around and wait for an ambulance to show up if she cared in the slightest.

If she remembers giving birth than she certainly should have done more than walk away afterward. Even if she really has amnesia I don't see how one can get around that minor fact. If she really does have it and isn't simply lying for fear of punishment.Whatever happened, the baby had no chance of surviving. The paramedics thought she was about 20 weeks pregnant. The youngest ever surviving baby was born at 22 weeks.

She might well be lying about having amnesia, but I don't think anyone would be in a rational state of mind after having a miscarriage, and having it in public at that. I can't even believe you're implying that she should be punished.

Just try to imagine yourself in your situation. You're pregnant, you've probably been getting quite attached to your baby, thinking of names and everything, even though you don't know the sex of the baby yet. When pretty suddenly you're in intense pain, bleeding everytwhere and you miscarry. A dead baby is forced through your vagina, you're covered in your own blood, there are people all around staring at you, someone might be trying to talk to you, but you can't really here due to the pain and being in shock. You get up and walk away, you don't look back, you try to ignore the world around, the worst thing in the world has just happened to you, and you just want to get away, away from all those people staring at you. Not the fittest of mental states ever I'd imagine.

I'd've eaten the baby. :)

I'd've eaten the baby. :)

If she DID do that this article would have been a bit more interesting.....:eek:

Whatever happened, the baby had no chance of surviving. The paramedics thought she was about 20 weeks pregnant. The youngest ever surviving baby was born at 22 weeks.

She might well be lying about having amnesia, but I don't think anyone would be in a rational state of mind after having a miscarriage, and having it in public at that. I can't even believe you're implying that she should be punished.

Just try to imagine yourself in your situation. You're pregnant, you've probably been getting quite attached to your baby, thinking of names and everything, even though you don't know the sex of the baby yet. When pretty suddenly you're in intense pain, bleeding everytwhere and you miscarry. A dead baby is forced through your vagina, you're covered in your own blood, there are people all around staring at you, someone might be trying to talk to you, but you can't really here due to the pain and being in shock. You get up and walk away, you don't look back, you try to ignore the world around, the worst thing in the world has just happened to you, and you just want to get away, away from all those people staring at you. Not the fittest of mental states ever I'd imagine.

I didn't say she should be punished. Just that she could very well be lying about the amnesia and is afraid of punishment.

I simply can't believe though that she would just wander away from what happened if she felt any emotion to her baby. Her focus should have been on one thing, not caring about "people staring at her". Anything else people try to argue is just excuses to try to make her look better than her actions have shown her to be.

You get up and walk away, you don't look back, you try to ignore the world around, the worst thing in the world has just happened to you, and you just want to get away, away from all those people staring at you. Not the fittest of mental states ever I'd imagine.

But fortunately her recovery process will greatly be eased by the complete strangers telling her she is repulsive and should be slaughtered for what she did.

I simply can't believe though that she would just wander away from what happened if she felt any emotion to her baby. Her focus should have been on one thing, not caring about "people staring at her". Anything else people try to argue is just excuses to try to make her look better than her actions have shown her to be.

Ah, if only humans were perfect machines !

If she DID do that this article would have been a bit more interesting.....:eek:

Exactly!

The further thought occurs that if she could show such apathy towards this situation i think she did something which doctors wouldn't advise pregnant women to do, probably after being warned not to do it, hey she doesn't care for the kid so she went ahead and did whatever she did that caused the child to die inside her.

Yes, just result. And for me, it does work; I hold myself accountable for my actions. Honour is of utmost important, and with that come the stringent rules of integrity. Sadly, I cannot say the same of the large portion of society.

Ok, you are obviously one of those teenage munchkin Star Trek fans who are obsessed with trying to be a Klingon. Either that or you're (note proper usage of the word) just some idiot kid who likes to poke grizzly bears with a short stick. The above post nearly made me do a spit take it was so funny.

The further thought occurs that if she could show such apathy towards this situation i think she did something which doctors wouldn't advise pregnant women to do, probably after being warned not to do it, hey she doesn't care for the kid so she went ahead and did whatever she did that caused the child to die inside her.

do you have anyidea, any idea WHAT SO EVER how pregnancy works?

Your ignorance is astounding.

do you have anyidea, any idea WHAT SO EVER how pregnancy works?

Your ignorance is astounding.

A: Can't hold it against me, I'm only beginning to be taught about pregnancy in biology stuff in school

B: You've degraded and flamed me enough, I warned you.

A: Can't hold it against me, I'm only beginning to be taught about pregnancy in biology stuff in school

Yes, I can hold it against you. Normal people don't speak on topics they don't know about. So don't speak until you know what it is you're speaking about.

B: You've degraded and flamed me enough, I warned you.

I'm....scared? I haven't degraded you, you've done that enough, mostly by, as you yourself admit, trying to speak on subjects you know nothing about.

Yes, I can hold it against you. Normal people don't speak on topics they don't know about. So don't speak until you know what it is you're speaking about.



I'm....scared? I haven't degraded you, you've done that enough, mostly by, as you yourself admit, trying to speak on subjects you know nothing about.

I know enough about pregnacy to post on this thread.

I'll expound, she's sick in the head and lacks maternal instinct, she probably, drank alchohol, used an oil product or something and then the child died thus causing the miscarriage, after it came out of her she apathetically left.

Thats what I meant... if I'm wrong then I know that the miscarriage was a genetic mutation that causes fetuses to die early. Saying I'm wrong their is saying my textbooks are wrong, in which case you'd be denying proven facts.

I know enough about pregnacy to post on this thread.

I'll expound, she's sick in the head and lacks maternal instinct, she probably, drank alchohol, used an oil product or something and then the child died thus causing the miscarriage, after it came out of her she apathetically left.

proof? Of any of this?

Thats what I meant... if I'm wrong then I know that the miscarriage was a genetic mutation that causes fetuses to die early. Saying I'm wrong their is saying my textbooks are wrong, in which case you'd be denying proven facts.

OK, let's for the hell of this...about how many pregnancies result in miscarriage?

proof? Of any of this?



OK, let's for the hell of this...about how many pregnancies result in miscarriage?

The proof is in the article and in this discussion, she's obviously hiding from punishment and was apathetic to the whole situation, or else she wouldn't have left the child there. Where were you? Living under a rock?

Edit: I fucking hate this time warp. I really wish my name weren't connected to this thread title.

I was wondering...

If she didn't give a damn about the baby's welfare, then why didn't she at least call an ambulance for herself? Giving birth hurts, and it's not something you do on a sidewalk unless there's something impairing your thinking.

And if she were doing this on purpose, why wouldn't she have done it in private place where she could make a less noticable escape?

Talk about a rush to judgement..... yeesh. Hows about a little practice what you preach? Yes, Nazz, IF she turns out to have the intellectual agility of a small soap dish, that obviously changes things. That opinion was stated on the basic concept that this was just simply a cruel and callous waste of free oxygen (but reasonably intelligent person) that committed this atrocity.

Any more "what if" scenarios you wish you expound? Hmmm?

Do you know what a rush to judgement is?

It's reasonable to think that when someone does something out of the ordinary that there's already something wrong with them.

Even if she didn't abandon a newborn, she gave birth on the street. That's extremely unusual behavior.

It's a rush to judgement to think that the only reasonable response is to assume that she is simply a callous and uncaring person. In fact, it's a bit dumb.

Nazz was advocating a little thought on your part. That's not a bad thing.

So disoriented that she immediately forgets what happens and walks off? Somehow I don't think so. I'd lean more to that she didn't give a damn.

*nods*

She'd at least stick around and wait for an ambulance to show up if she cared in the slightest.

If she didn't give a damn about the baby's welfare, then why didn't she at least call an ambulance for herself? Giving birth hurts, and it's not something you do on a sidewalk unless there's something impairing your thinking.

I didn't say she should be punished. Just that she could very well be lying about the amnesia and is afraid of punishment.Sorry, I guess I misread your post.I simply can't believe though that she would just wander away from what happened if she felt any emotion to her baby. Her focus should have been on one thing, not caring about "people staring at her". Anything else people try to argue is just excuses to try to make her look better than her actions have shown her to be.The fear of judgement often exacerbates negative feelings and can be quite detrimental.If she didn't give a damn about the baby's welfare, then why didn't she at least call an ambulance for herself? Giving birth hurts, and it's not something you do on a sidewalk unless there's something impairing your thinking.This is a good explanation.

You say her focus should have been on one thing. I don't think she was of a fit state of mind to be focused on anything other than what had just happened. I don't think she would have been able to get past that and come to a rational judgement about what to do next - like call an ambulance.

I don't see what the big deal is. When the Greeks didn't want a child they just dropped it off in the woods and let fate handle things.

Blame god. *nods head*

I thought that was just the Spartans, and it wasn't that the parents didn't want the kid, it was that the community thought that the baby was sickly, and they left it alone overnight to see if it could survive.

The proof is in the article and in this discussion, she's obviously hiding from punishment and was apathetic to the whole situation, or else she wouldn't have left the child there. Where were you? Living under a rock?I don't think you understand the amount of emotional trauma that a woman goes through when she gives birth, let alone miscarries. Perhaps if you get kidney stones then one day you might be able to begin to understand.

And no one decided to adopt the newborn whom the mother obviously didn't want after seeing her give birth to it?! Heck why didn't someone call for an ambulance as soon as she fell on the ground in pain? That way it would have been born in a hospital where she would have had medical attention to prevent massive blood loss and the child would be placed in good hands? Society LET this happen!

It's sad, but things like this have happened before. It's called the Bystander Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

Fix her so she can no longer bear children then force her to wear a t-shirt that says "I murder newborn babies" everyday to remind her of her sins...

You scare the hell out of me. Considering that this was a statement AFTER somebody brought up the idea that she might not be with it?

You SCARE me.

A LOT.

OK, let's for the hell of this...about how many pregnancies result in miscarriage?

- Why, I'm glad you asked that question Andy. You see, miscarriages aren't that uncommon. I'll let your frind and mine, Dr. Wiki, tell you more. Doctor?

- Thank you Bob, I will:
Determining the prevalence of miscarriage is difficult. Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. Treatment of women with miscarriage at home means medical statistics on miscarriage miss many cases. Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's Last Menstrual Period). The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply after the 8th week, i.e. when the fetal stage begins. Clinical miscarriages (those occurring after the sixth week LMP) occur in 8% of pregnancies.

The prevalence of miscarriage increases considerably with age of the parents. Pregnancies from men younger than twenty-five years are 40% less likely to end in miscarriage than pregnancies from men 25-29 years. Pregnancies from men older than forty years are 60% more like to end in miscarriage than the 25-29 year age group. The increased risk of miscarriage in pregnancies from older men is mainly seen in the first trimester. In women, by the age of forty-five, 75% of pregnancies may end in miscarriage.

- Say, Dr. Wiki, do you have anything else to add?

- Well, Betty, let me just add:
Although a woman physically recovers from a miscarriage quickly, psychological recovery for parents in general can take a long time. People differ a lot in this regard: some are 'over it' after a few months, others take more than a year. Still others may feel relief or other less negative emotions.

For those who do go through a process of grief, it is often as if the baby had been born but died. How short a time the fetus lived in the womb may not matter for the feeling of loss. From the moment pregnancy is discovered, the parents can start to bond with the unborn child. When the child turns out not to be viable, dreams, fantasies and plans for the future are disturbed roughly.

Besides the feeling of loss, a lack of understanding by others is often important. People who have not experienced a miscarriage themselves may find it hard to empathise with what has occurred and how upsetting it may be. This may lead to unrealistic expectations of the parents' recovery. The pregnancy and miscarriage are hardly mentioned anymore in conversation, often too because the subject is too painful. This can make the woman feel particularly isolated.

- I can't say why that was noted on the page, but somehow it felt... fitting.

I thought that was just the Spartans, and it wasn't that the parents didn't want the kid, it was that the community thought that the baby was sickly, and they left it alone overnight to see if it could survive.

The Spartans did it more often, but I know if an Athenian didn't want the child they'd leave it somewhere in a basket filled with various things to help someone in case they decided to raise the infant.

Of course. And who defines what is rational?

The same way people define what is illegal. By a majority rule of specialists in that particular field. Don't like it? Go form your own medical community in podunksville.


Unaware? That is a completely subjective definition.


And yet you claim that if a crime is being committed by your body while you were unconscious, you are not responsible. That's pretty much unaware to me. And I don't mean just whacked on the head unconscious. If your head is in la-la-land, it still counts.


It's only a paradox because you see this "experiment" as the only way to prove that insanity doesn't exist. It is first of all a flawed conception, because it allows for a substantial amount of subjectivity. I being the only subject, how are you to measure what is actually insane?


You being the only available dissenter on the existence of the condition of insanity, and along with the fact that I do have a large amount of medical research freely available to source from, indicates that all I would have to do to prove it to your satisfaction is induce insanity in you, and have a board of psychologists confirm that you are, insane.


Is it not through a subconscious comparison with social normatives? Insanity doesn't exist. It is only a perception of behavior that is different, and by subjective comparison irrational. So to society as a whole, insanity exists as a different state that is not, by society's definitions, rational; when in fact "insanity" is simply a different state of rationality. Perception of rationality is rationality. Comparison only furthers subjective measurement.

Ergo, murder doesn't exist because it is a subjective view that merely complies with social norms, and I can chop off your head and walk away without having committed a crime.

You fail.

On a related note:
http://www.milkandcookies.com/images/feature/f/familyguydumpsterbaby.jpg
Family Guy song (http://www.devilducky.com/media/58672/)
Pushing the envelope or scrapping the barrel?
matter of opinion and taste.

You scare the hell out of me. Considering that this was a statement AFTER somebody brought up the idea that she might not be with it?

You SCARE me.

A LOT.

DUNNNNN DUNNNNN DUNNNNNN :D

ALL HAIL THE IRON FIST OF SOUTH LIZASAURIA!!!!

It's sad, but things like this have happened before. It's called the Bystander Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

It's also a variation of why 200 people would run away from one guy holding a handgun when they could just as easily beat him into a bloody pulp.

And no one decided to adopt the newborn whom the mother obviously didn't want after seeing her give birth to it?! Heck why didn't someone call for an ambulance as soon as she fell on the ground in pain? That way it would have been born in a hospital where she would have had medical attention to prevent massive blood loss and the child would be placed in good hands? Society LET this happen!
It is none of the publics concern.
Sad but true.

DUNNNNN DUNNNNN DUNNNNNN :D

ALL HAIL THE IRON FIST OF SOUTH LIZASAURIA!!!!

More like, "I am an arrogant child. Please slap me upside the head. The queue starts a quarter-mile to your left, thanks."

Wow, the responses on this thread are scary.

There is virtually no information included in the original story. All we have are the accounts of witnesses who--according to the story--stood by while a woman gave birth, then left the newborn lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. From this, we have people leaping to conclusions that this woman a) caused the miscarriage, b) had no "maternal instinct" (whatever the fuck that means), c) did not know about abortions or adoption as options, and d) deserves to die or be brutalized as punishment for what happened.

Impressive. That's some quality woman-hating.

Even if she's incapable of understanding what she did? Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person.

Even if we were able to see that the woman behaved normally up to the moment of this horrible situation, we can expect a lawyer to jump to her defense,claiming post-partum depression, etc...

No one is repsonsible for their actions today, I think it actually lurks in the subconscious of mental defects that no matter how heinous an act they partake in,someone will be able to illustrate that somehwere along the line,THEY are the victim and society shortchanged them.

Its a sad state of affairs.

We see disgusting and depraved acts almost daily.

I can only say-I do my best to give my children good examples of being responsible and conducting themselves. And doing unto others as they'd have done to them.
I want my kids to take good care of themselves and treat others they come in contact with dignity and respect and be charitable where and when they can be.

If more people made an effort to do this,maybe we would have less people in these horrendous situations and more people to lend them a hand when they are in it.

I couldnt walk past a woman giving birth in the street,wether she was coherent or a raving lunatic.

No one is repsonsible for their actions today, I think it actually lurks in the subconscious of mental defects that no matter how heinous an act they partake in,someone will be able to illustrate that somehwere along the line,THEY are the victim and society shortchanged them.

That's the product of our society, which says that everyone's opinion has value, no matter how heinous the opinion. And no one has to be responsible for their actions - if the actions are bad, we blame them on "society" or it's the government's fault.

It's not just the mental defects that think it - there's a whole political party that believes it.

Wow, the responses on this thread are scary.

There is virtually no information included in the original story. All we have are the accounts of witnesses who--according to the story--stood by while a woman gave birth, then left the newborn lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. From this, we have people leaping to conclusions that this woman a) caused the miscarriage, b) had no "maternal instinct" (whatever the fuck that means), c) did not know about abortions or adoption as options, and d) deserves to die or be brutalized as punishment for what happened.

Impressive. That's some quality woman-hating.

If the "witnesses" had seen this same woman struck by a car, would they have at least moved her from harm's way, maybe cradled her head,covered her with a coat and held her hand til paramedics arrived?

What did they do? There is very little info in this story-enough to just piss off reactionary people.

How did the baby die? There is obviously much more to the story.

Wow, the responses on this thread are scary.

There is virtually no information included in the original story. All we have are the accounts of witnesses who--according to the story--stood by while a woman gave birth, then left the newborn lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. From this, we have people leaping to conclusions that this woman a) caused the miscarriage, b) had no "maternal instinct" (whatever the fuck that means), c) did not know about abortions or adoption as options, and d) deserves to die or be brutalized as punishment for what happened.

Impressive. That's some quality woman-hating.I think I was one of the first to try and defend the woman. I think I won a fair amount of people over, but then misogynists regrouped and we were overwhelmed by sheer numerical superiority. Either that or I got bored banging my head against a brick wall.

And if it turns out that she has the brain capacity of a six year old and was sexually abused, might that change your opinion? Jeez--talk about a fucking rush to judgment. In another time, I presume you'd be the one with the rope leading the charge to the jail to mete out some vigilante justice.


i agree, u cant judge before knowing the complete situation.

however i am also in agreement that if it turns out that she was drunk, or a druggie, or of sound mind, then beat her to a pulp and leave her to die. i have no sympathy for the stupid. :upyours:


:sniper:

How did the baby die? There is obviously much more to the story.

As a guess - given that it seems the baby/foetus was at about 20 weeks development in the womb, younger than any premature baby has ever survived, that the cause of death was that the baby/foetus was either stillborn or that the baby died very shortly after birth because it's body was insufficently developed to possibly survive outside the womb.

That's the product of our society, which says that everyone's opinion has value, no matter how heinous the opinion. And no one has to be responsible for their actions - if the actions are bad, we blame them on "society" or it's the government's fault.

It's not just the mental defects that think it - there's a whole political party that believes it.
Why are we pretending that only the extremes exist?

I'm all for holding individuals responsible for their actions. However, this includes expecting people to get the facts BEFORE they leap to judgment. We have almost no information when it comes to this story, so why is it a virtue to rush into drastic accusations and punishments?

To put it another way, we don't actually know who the individual in this situation is. For all we know, she might be mentally disabled. Or she might be a brilliant sociopath. We don't know what really happened in the situation. She might have intentionally induced miscarriage. It might have been a horrible accident. She might have been beaten up by her boyfriend. She might have been walking away to seek help. She might have been totally indifferent and abandoned the newborn.

In my opinion, you cannot hold an individual responsible for their actions until you first figure out who you are talking about and what actions were taken. It's stupid to sit around passing judgment on a situation where you don't even know what happened.

That's the product of our society, which says that everyone's opinion has value, no matter how heinous the opinion. And no one has to be responsible for their actions - if the actions are bad, we blame them on "society" or it's the government's fault.

It's not just the mental defects that think it - there's a whole political party that believes it.

I cant get into the politics of it, just the human aspect.

Can a human walk by this scene and say "That stupid crackehead bitch" ?

No matter what the mother's religion,political party or mental state, we still have a newborn,naked baby alone on the street.
Did some callous ass trip on it and thats what killed it?

I cant get into the politics of it, just the human aspect.

Can a human walk by this scene and say "That stupid crackehead bitch" ?

No matter what the mother's religion,political party or mental state, we still have a newborn,naked baby alone on the street.
Did some callous ass trip on it and thats what killed it?

Well, the very least someone could do is pick up the child, and call 911 on their cell.

As for the woman, if she's just walking off, my priority is on the kid.

If the "witnesses" had seen this same woman struck by a car, would they have at least moved her from harm's way, maybe cradled her head,covered her with a coat and held her hand til paramedics arrived?

What did they do? There is very little info in this story-enough to just piss off reactionary people.

How did the baby die? There is obviously much more to the story.
Stories like this one are kind of like ink-blot tests. You really find out more about the people responding to them than you find out about the story in question.

Some people see this story and immediately think things like, "Apparently this woman has never heard of "abortions" or "adoptions"", or "The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood," or "Fix her so she can no longer bear children then force her to wear a t-shirt that says "I murder newborn babies" everyday to remind her of her sins..."

Their immediate inclination is to hate the woman in question. They want to mock her, insult her, and physically harm her. They are certain that she deserves blame and serious punishment.

Others think things like, "Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person." Or "It's a sad, sad society that lets people just flop down dead and not do a thing in times of peace." Or "How long does a birth normally take? There were witnesses on the scene who did not assist the woman, called an ambulance, or looked how the newborn was doing?"

These individuals immediately see the situation and think, "Cripes, what could have gone wrong for this to happen?!" They don't automatically assume that the woman must be an evil being, they assume that something had to be seriously fucked up for this to happen. Maybe the woman was ill or mentally disabled. What the fuck were the witnesses doing? How did somebody give birth in public and not receive help of any kind?

There is virtually no information in the story. There's no particular reason to assume that the woman deserves to be hated and abused, any more than there is particular reason to assume that she deserves sympathy and help.

The only reason people assume one way or the other is because of their own personal biases. Do they tend to assume that a woman is a good person, and they assume something must have been very wrong in a situation where a woman does something that appears awful at first glance? Or do they tend to assume that a woman is an evil being who would do something horrible, and that she deserves brutal punishment for what happened?

As a guess - given that it seems the baby/foetus was at about 20 weeks development in the womb, younger than any premature baby has ever survived, that the cause of death was that the baby/foetus was either stillborn or that the baby died very shortly after birth because it's body was insufficently developed to possibly survive outside the womb.

Ok-thanks. If thats the case-I must have missed that in the linked story.

Not that it matters much,but I feel slightly better about the situation.

Well, the very least someone could do is pick up the child, and call 911 on their cell.

As for the woman, if she's just walking off, my priority is on the kid.

And given it was born about 20 weeks premature your priority will be very short lived - even if you are in a maternity ward at a specialist hospital for premature births.

There's no particular reason to assume that the woman deserves to be hated and abused, any more than there is particular reason to assume that she deserves sympathy and help.

Except for the fact that she dumped a newborn baby on a sidewalk and that said baby died, no. Sorry, but my sympathy's not going to be going anywhere near the direction of the "mother."

Except for the fact that she dumped a newborn baby on a sidewalk, no.

She miscarried a baby/foetus that was born about 20 weeks premature - even if she gave birth in a specialist maternity ward the baby/foetus would have either died very quickly or become the most premature birth to have ever survived. That is assuming the baby/foetus was not stillborn.

And given it was born about 20 weeks premature your priority will be very short lived - even if you are in a maternity ward at a specialist hospital for premature births.

Sorry, kids that premature have lived.

She miscarried a baby/foetus that was born about 20 weeks premature - even if she gave birth in a specialist maternity ward the baby/foetus would have either died very quickly or become the most premature birth to have ever survived. That is assuming the baby/foetus was not stillborn.


"The baby would've died anyway!" Right, so that perfectly justifies her actions. :rolleyes:

Sorry, kids that premature have lived.

Can you please source?

Can you please further source how many born that premature outside of maternity wards lived?

Except for the fact that she dumped a newborn baby on a sidewalk, no.
Again, we don't even know that is what happened. We know that a woman gave birth on a sidewalk and then walked away. We don't know why she gave birth there. We don't know why she walked away, where she was going, or what she was doing.

Our information about this situation comes entirely from people WHO DID NOTHING TO HELP HER. Can we just let that sink in a bit? She just gave birth surrounded by people who stood by and did nothing., yet we are completely relying on the reports from those bystanders.

Fuck, I'd walk away from those people, too. I'd try to find somebody who would help me. I'd be scared as shit and probably in shock. I'd be instinctively seeking out help, and it would be obvious that the people around me weren't about to provide it, so I'd try to find somebody who would.

Even the way you phrased your post exhibits the "ink blot" reaction I was talking about. She "dumped" the baby on the sidewalk, according to you. We could just as easily say that she suddenly miscarried her pregnancy while multiple witnesses looked on and did nothing to help. We know she left the scene, but you immediately assume that she was "dumping" the newborn, rather than--for instance--assuming that she was going to get help. Or wandering off in shock. Or anything else.

Meh. You see what you want to see.

Can you please source?

Can you please further source how many born that premature outside of maternity wards lived?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774

Born at 22 weeks.

I'm sure there would be time to rush to the hospital.

Hey, maybe if you get run over by a car, and are bleeding profusely from multiple sites, we'll stand around and say, "well, we're not expert surgeons, and Shx will probably bleed to death before we can get him to a hospital, so let's just smoke cigarettes and watch him exsanguinate..."

"The baby would've died anyway!" Right, so that perfectly justifies her actions. :rolleyes:

Assuming it was not stillborn - which would seem very likely.

Also - she was obviously in a lot of shock having just unexpectedly given birth and finding her baby was dead. People don't always behave calmly or rationally when in shock. Actually it's quite common for them not to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774

Born at 22 weeks.

I'm sure there would be time to rush to the hospital.
So none at 20 weeks then?

Anywhere?

So - a baby significantly more developed than a 20 week foetus, born into an intensive care unit that knew the baby was coming and had time to prepare, managed to become the first ever baby born under 23 weeks to survive, and you feel a much less developed baby born on a sidewalk that would not have had a respirator for at least 10-15 minutes stands a chance...


Hey, maybe if you get run over by a car, and are bleeding profusely from multiple sites, we'll stand around and say, "well, we're not expert surgeons, and Shx will probably bleed to death before we can get him to a hospital, so let's just smoke cigarettes and watch him exsanguinate..."

given a huge number of people have survived the situation you mentioned, while apparently no births at 20 weeks have ever led to a survival (it would seem), I fail to see how the two situations compare.

Stories like this one are kind of like ink-blot tests. You really find out more about the people responding to them than you find out about the story in question.

Some people see this story and immediately think things like, "Apparently this woman has never heard of "abortions" or "adoptions"", or "The woman needs to be beaten and left for dead on the sidewalk in a pool of her own blood," or "Fix her so she can no longer bear children then force her to wear a t-shirt that says "I murder newborn babies" everyday to remind her of her sins..."

Their immediate inclination is to hate the woman in question. They want to mock her, insult her, and physically harm her. They are certain that she deserves blame and serious punishment.

Others think things like, "Look, people--this isn't normal behavior. You guys are all out for revenge immediately and haven't even considered the possibility that she's out of her mind, even though the actions she did are not the actions of a sane person." Or "It's a sad, sad society that lets people just flop down dead and not do a thing in times of peace." Or "How long does a birth normally take? There were witnesses on the scene who did not assist the woman, called an ambulance, or looked how the newborn was doing?"

These individuals immediately see the situation and think, "Cripes, what could have gone wrong for this to happen?!" They don't automatically assume that the woman must be an evil being, they assume that something had to be seriously fucked up for this to happen. Maybe the woman was ill or mentally disabled. What the fuck were the witnesses doing? How did somebody give birth in public and not receive help of any kind?

There is virtually no information in the story. There's no particular reason to assume that the woman deserves to be hated and abused, any more than there is particular reason to assume that she deserves sympathy and help.

The only reason people assume one way or the other is because of their own personal biases. Do they tend to assume that a woman is a good person, and they assume something must have been very wrong in a situation where a woman does something that appears awful at first glance? Or do they tend to assume that a woman is an evil being who would do something horrible, and that she deserves brutal punishment for what happened?


This makes me think the original story from the original link was deliberately lacking info in an effort to create the biggest stir of emotion.
I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about the news agency that chose to print such little detail.

I want to think that even today, there were well intended people present that made some effort to help the baby, help the mother-at least try to stop her from continuing on her way,talk or comfort her-But,the article doesnt bother with much of that.

I think they want you to picture a depraved crack whore dropping a crying baby and react wit hanger and violence.

So none at 20 weeks then?

Anywhere?



given a huge number of people have survived the situation you mentioned, while apparently no births at 20 weeks have ever led to a survival (it would seem), I fail to see how the two situations compare.

How is the common passerby, with no medical experience, supposed to render a medical judgment - which is what you're implying.

You're implying we can all tell it's a fetus "too early to save".

Wow - didn't know we could all recognize each weekly stage of fetal development on sight.

It's the same comparison - people with no real medical knowledge aren't going to know how badly you're injured just by a quick glance.

Even a doctor in an emergency room has to take time to examine your body to see what's injured and what's not.

But, it's nice to know you have X-ray vision, and perfect medical knowledge, and can know when a fetus isn't worth saving.

This makes me think the original story from the original link was deliberately lacking info in an effort to create the biggest stir of emotion.
I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about the news agency that chose to print such little detail.

It could be, though they may simply not have a lot of information. I've seen a lot of news clippings like that, where they have virtually no details yet. I believe one article about this case mentioned that an autopsy will be performed today, so maybe they'll do a follow up or something.


I want to think that even today, there were well intended people present that made some effort to help the baby, help the mother-at least try to stop her from continuing on her way,talk or comfort her-But,the article doesnt bother with much of that.

One would like to think so, yes, but as you said...the article doesn't mention any of this. We have no more reason to assume that the bystanders helped than we have reason to assume the woman was a crack whore. We just don't have any info.


I think they want you to picture a depraved crack whore dropping a crying baby and react wit hanger and violence.
It certainly seems to be a common reaction. :(

Again, we don't even know that is what happened. We know that a woman gave birth on a sidewalk and then walked away. We don't know why she gave birth there. We don't know why she walked away, where she was going, or what she was doing.

Stop right there. I don't care why she did it. Nor do I give a flying fuck where she was going or what she was doing. The fact is that she left a newborn baby on a sidewalk to die. End of story.

Assuming it was not stillborn - which would seem very likely.

Possible, sure, but you can assume all you like. And we all know the addage about assuming.

Also - she was obviously in a lot of shock having just unexpectedly given birth and finding her baby was dead. People don't always behave calmly or rationally when in shock. Actually it's quite common for them not to.

"OMGooses! I just popped a baby out of my body! I'd better leave!"

Sorry, not good enough.

Just another case of TSTC (Too stupid to care!) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang:

Again, we don't even know that is what happened. We know that a woman gave birth on a sidewalk and then walked away. We don't know why she gave birth there. We don't know why she walked away, where she was going, or what she was doing.

Our information about this situation comes entirely from people WHO DID NOTHING TO HELP HER. Can we just let that sink in a bit? She just gave birth surrounded by people who stood by and did nothing., yet we are completely relying on the reports from those bystanders.

Fuck, I'd walk away from those people, too. I'd try to find somebody who would help me. I'd be scared as shit and probably in shock. I'd be instinctively seeking out help, and it would be obvious that the people around me weren't about to provide it, so I'd try to find somebody who would.

Even the way you phrased your post exhibits the "ink blot" reaction I was talking about. She "dumped" the baby on the sidewalk, according to you. We could just as easily say that she suddenly miscarried her pregnancy while multiple witnesses looked on and did nothing to help. We know she left the scene, but you immediately assume that she was "dumping" the newborn, rather than--for instance--assuming that she was going to get help. Or wandering off in shock. Or anything else.

Meh. You see what you want to see.

It wouldnt be competely outlandish to find out this mother knew the baby was already dead. She could have just gotten the bad news-the shock of her life.
One of the times my wife gave birth, I met a woman in the maternity ward who had to be there because her baby died at 6 or 7 months and SHE HAD TO STILL DELIVER IT.
Maybe my experience at learning something this horrible the hard way makes me reserve judgement til more of the obviously lacking facts are in.

Maybe this is a young,white middle class mother that was just told her baby is already dead. Maybe she was alone because her husband is serving as a Marine in the middle east. Maybe she couldnt handle the news and was wandering the streets,alone in her misery,when her body rejected the stillborn baby.

Maybe she is a fine,faithful upstanding member of society that was just dealt a terrible hand. Or,maybe she was just a deplorable low life and does this every 6 months.

This story doesnt tell us either. But it really doesnt matter.

But it really doesnt matter.

No, it doesn't, because Bottle will continue with her usual "women can do fuck all without questions or consequences, just because they don't have penises" no matter what we post here. :rolleyes:

How is the common passerby, with no medical experience, supposed to render a medical judgment - which is what you're implying.

You're implying we can all tell it's a fetus "too early to save".

Wow - didn't know we could all recognize each weekly stage of fetal development on sight.

I haven't personally seen what human fetuses look like at all stages of development, but I do happen to work with vertebrate embryos throughout various stages. From my experience, I can tell you a couple of things that might relate to this topic:

You might not be able to correctly identify how many weeks old a fetus is, but you absolutely could tell if it is drastically under-formed. The proportions are wrong, and it just flat-out looks like it's not fully developed. This is something any lay person could see. Perhaps they couldn't tell HOW young it is, and they certainly couldn't know what its statistical odds of survival might be, but they definitely could tell if it was radically premature.

I, personally, have noticed that I have a kind of emotional reaction to different-aged embryos. I have to kill embryos as part of my research, and I find that I have relatively little trouble killing earlier embryos. I know they are alive, but they dont...feel...as alive to me in some way. Older embryos, however, seem to be "more" alive, even though my rational brain knows this is not the case. I have an instinctive desire to not harm older embryos or newborns or hatchlings, but this desire diminishes and gradually disappears when working with the much younger embryos.

I don't know if this is something other people would share, I'm just relating my personal experience, so please don't think that I'm trying to say everybody would feel this way. I just know that 1) people will be able to recognize the difference between a more developed fetus and a much younger fetus, and 2) it is possible that people would have very different reactions to fetuses of different ages. Our protective instincts might not work the same when faced with different stimuli.

I also should add that I do NOT believe any of this excuses the bystanders' behavior, if indeed they did stand by and fail to offer aid.

No, it doesn't, because Bottle will continue with her usual "women can do fuck all without questions or consequences, just because they don't have penises" no matter what we post here. :rolleyes:
Please provide a specific quote of where I said anything remotely equating to "women can do fuck all without questions or consequences, just because they don't have penises." You can quote from any thread, if you like, not just this one, though it would be best for you to support your claim with evidence from this thread.

Or you can just apologize for lying. Either way.

How is the common passerby, with no medical experience, supposed to render a medical judgment - which is what you're implying.
No - I am merely pointing out that you were very very incorrect when you stated that infants born that young have survived.


It's the same comparison - people with no real medical knowledge aren't going to know how badly you're injured just by a quick glance.

Even a doctor in an emergency room has to take time to examine your body to see what's injured and what's not.

But, it's nice to know you have X-ray vision, and perfect medical knowledge, and can know when a fetus isn't worth saving.
Did you spot the bit in the article quoted earlier in the thread about when the woman coming out of the shop - the first on the scene - spotted that there was a foetus/baby on the floor and called 999?

I'm still not seeing the comparison - I'm beginning to see a strawman being built, but nothing else.

I was just pointing out that the baby was either dead already or had zero chance of survival beyond the next few minutes.

And that the woman miscarrying also knew the development, and also seemed to know it was a miscarrige not a birth - which could imply she found the baby to be dead when it came out.

I mean - imagine you/your wife mis-carries at...say - 10 weeks - are you going to call out an ambulance to save the foetus? Why/why not?

Please provide a specific quote of where I said anything remotely equating to "women can do fuck all without questions or consequences, just because they don't have penises." You can quote from any thread, if you like, not just this one, though it would be best for you to support your claim with evidence from this thread.

Or you can just apologize for lying. Either way.

Anyone can check your post history. I don't feel like doing their homework for them.

Maybe she is a fine,faithful upstanding member of society that was just dealt a terrible hand. Or,maybe she was just a deplorable low life and does this every 6 months.

Exactly. It's possible that this woman is a horrible human being who does this sort of thing for kicks. But why should we assume that, any more than we should assume she is a perfect person who was completely free from blame? Both are silly extreme to leap to, and we don't have sufficient evidence for either one.

But I guess I must be a crazy rabid feminist for suggesting that maybe we gather facts first and stone the witch second...

Anyone can check your post history. I don't feel like doing their homework for them.
I'm not asking you to do anybody's "homework" but your own. Please provide any quote that supports the accusation you chose to make.

*sigh* since it's not, apparently, clear:

To the OP, yes the act was reprehensible and should be punished accordingly.

Punished for what, exactly? Having a miscarriage? This fetus was at five months there was NO possibility for a live birth and it was already dead and thus could not have been salvage by any means. What exactly are we charging her with? Disturbing the peace?

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_5400791

Despite your foolish misunderstandings about the nature of cause and effect, this woman did nothing except freak out when she miscarried.

But I guess I must be a crazy rabid feminist for suggesting that maybe we gather facts first and stone the witch second...

Are you suggesting that we bring reason and logic into a debate?

:eek:

Surely that goes against a NSG rule somewhere.

No - I am merely pointing out that you were very very incorrect when you stated that infants born that young have survived.


Did you spot the bit in the article quoted earlier in the thread about when the woman coming out of the shop - the first on the scene - spotted that there was a foetus/baby on the floor and called 999?

I'm still not seeing the comparison - I'm beginning to see a strawman being built, but nothing else.

I was just pointing out that the baby was either dead already or had zero chance of survival beyond the next few minutes.

And that the woman miscarrying also knew the development, and also seemed to know it was a miscarrige not a birth - which could imply she found the baby to be dead when it came out.

I mean - imagine you/your wife mis-carries at...say - 10 weeks - are you going to call out an ambulance to save the foetus? Why/why not?


Hey, if it comes out, I'm calling 911.

I am not qualified to make medical judgments on the spot.

Did you know that police here in the US are not allowed to declare someone dead? That even if there's a dead person (quite obviously dead), they have to call for paramedics?

Citizens are under the same onus. We are not legally allowed to determine whether someone is dead or not unless we are a doctor or trained paramedic.

I'm not asking you to do anybody's "homework" but your own. Please provide any quote that supports the accusation you chose to make.

Anyone can read here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=707241) and see it. Vagina = Good. Penis = Evil. :rolleyes:

Anyone can read here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=707241) and see it. Vagina = Good. Penis = Evil. :rolleyes:
Clicked your link:

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

Anyone can read here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=707241) and see it. Vagina = Good. Penis = Evil. :rolleyes:

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Odd, I see neither the word penis nor vagina.

Hey, if it comes out, I'm calling 911.

I am not qualified to make medical judgments on the spot.

Did you know that police here in the US are not allowed to declare someone dead? That even if there's a dead person (quite obviously dead), they have to call for paramedics?

Citizens are under the same onus. We are not legally allowed to determine whether someone is dead or not unless we are a doctor or trained paramedic.
You're seriously going to call an ambulance to try save a 10 week foetus? Call one for your wife/you (not sure of gender) maybe but sheesh...

I'm not even sure that they'll call it a person to pronounce dead...

does anyone here know if you need to get a 10 week miscarrige pronounced dead?

Odd, I see neither the word penis nor vagina.

Summary of the body of work. There's a theme there, y'know.

I suppose I probably shouldn't encourage the hijacking of this thread, so let me try to bring it back to point:

Cluichstan, kindly address the points being raised on this topic. If you believe that my personal bias is causing me to reach incorrect conclusions, state SPECIFIC examples of this on this thread. If you believe I am advocating something unreasonable, share SPECIFIC examples and address them. Simply making false claims about me as a person is useless and irrelevant. Indeed, so far you are making my case for me, which I'm sure you don't want to do.

You're seriously going to call an ambulance to try save a 10 week foetus? Call one for your wife/you (not sure of gender) maybe but sheesh...

I'm not even sure that they'll call it a person to pronounce dead...

does anyone here know if you need to get a 10 week miscarrige pronounced dead?

The gist of the story seems to be a woman who pooped out a fetus and walked off.

I'm calling 911. And yes, they call the paramedics if you find a dead body.

when my friend had a miscarriage the doctor asked her to bring in the stuff so he could confirm....she was 14 weeks pregnant though.

was that to pronounce dead or to confirm a miscarrige had taken place and that she was not still pregnant?

My mum thought she had had a miscarrige at about 10 weeks for my brother, but when she was examined by the doctors they found she was still pregnant - there was no miscarrige pronounced though.

You're seriously going to call an ambulance to try save a 10 week foetus? Call one for your wife/you (not sure of gender) maybe but sheesh...

I'm not even sure that they'll call it a person to pronounce dead...

does anyone here know if you need to get a 10 week miscarrige pronounced dead?

when my friend had a miscarriage the doctor asked her to bring in the stuff so he could confirm....she was 14 weeks pregnant though.

I suppose I probably shouldn't encourage the hijacking of this thread, so let me try to bring it back to point:

Cluichstan, kindly address the points being raised on this topic. If you believe that my personal bias is causing me to reach incorrect conclusions, state SPECIFIC examples of this on this thread. If you believe I am advocating something unreasonable, share SPECIFIC examples and address them. Simply making false claims about me as a person is useless and irrelevant. Indeed, so far you are making my case for me, which I'm sure you don't want to do.


Let's see. Woman dumps baby on sidewalk. Baby dies. You defend woman, saying, "We don't know where she was going, what she was doing," etc. Heinous act, defended by "she's a woman, so we need to understand what she was feeling." I call bullshit.

Let's see. Woman dumps baby on sidewalk. Baby dies. You defend woman, saying, "We don't know where she was going, what she was doing," etc. Heinous act, defended by "she's a woman, so we need to understand what she was feeling." I call bullshit.

Maybe she was late to a Communist cell meeting. Give her a break, Cluich.

It certainly seems to be a common reaction. :(

I'll be honest and admit,when reading this limited story, thats my first reaction- "That disgusting bitch brood sow,probably drunk and high and on welfare"...
But the more I thought about it, the more it was clear that the story was light on the facts. The more I felt like I was being decieved or misguided.

Or-maybe thats all there was and they rushed to print it.

But-the story could have said-"A witness that tried to talk to the mother claims that..." Or "A witness that wrapped the baby in her sweater til police arrived..."

It seems deliberate that these little indicators were neglected.

Then I tried to imagine what circunstances would lead someone to being in such a wretched state, to have this happen and walk away.

There is likely a much larger problem we dont know yet.

And we'll miss it,because something more disgusting will happen between now and then and there will be someone else we need to stone to death in the street.

That's the product of our society, which says that everyone's opinion has value, no matter how heinous the opinion. And no one has to be responsible for their actions - if the actions are bad, we blame them on "society" or it's the government's fault.

It's not just the mental defects that think it - there's a whole political party that believes it.

Yes and unfortunately they hold the presidency.

I'll be honest and admit,when reading this limited story, thats my first reaction- "That disgusting bitch brood sow,probably drunk and high and on welfare"...
But the more I thought about it, the more it was clear that the story was light on the facts. The more I felt like I was being decieved or misguided.


The second storey posted on about page 7 in this thread (whichever page it is in the first post of that page) is a lot more clear.

Yes and unfortunately they hold the presidency.

No, I am referring to the Democratic Party, and their philosophy of the "nanny-state". Where the only reason our kids suck in school is because the state isn't spending enough money - not because the parents are irresponsible fucks who can't raise their kids to value education, and not because the kids are fucking chavs who know that the state will take care of them even if they're completely irresponsible.

Let's see. Woman dumps baby on sidewalk. Baby dies. You defend woman, saying, "We don't know where she was going, what she was doing," etc. Heinous act, defended by "she's a woman, so we need to understand what she was feeling." I call bullshit.
Again, you are seeing what you want to see.

I am not defending this woman because she is a woman, I'm simply saying that we don't have all the information about what happened. Indeed, in all the many possible scenarios I presented, not a single one had anything to do with her being a woman and therefore being free of blame.

I specifically and clearly provided scenarios that might excuse the actions in question, and not a single one was related to her femaleness. I suggested that perhaps she might have been mentally ill or disabled. Perhaps she actually was seeking help (something both males and females can do). Perhaps she was in shock (a condition that can occur in both males and females). Perhaps she was more seriously injured than the witnesses were aware of. None of this has anything to do with her being a woman in particular.

I have also specifically and clearly stated that it is certainly possible that she was irresponsible or even intentionally criminal. It is possible she's a horrible person. It's possible she does this sort of thing for kicks. My entire point was simply that we don't have any particular reason to assume that she is horrible, just like we have no particular reason to assume she was a completely innocent victim of circumstance. My entire point is that we should gather more information before leaping to conclusions.

You choose to view this situation through a profoundly sexist, misogynist lens, so you are going to see it in very gendered terms. You have decided what judgment you will pronounce, and you proceed to twist all data to conform to your judgment.

I don't share your perspective. I see the woman in this situation as a person. Her gender isn't really relevant, beyond the pure biological realities of her physical participation in reproduction. The fact that she is female has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her actions were justified. The factors that WOULD be important to determining if her actions were justified are simply not addressed in the article in question, so I will wait for more information before I reach any conclusion either way.

I really wonder what is wrong with people sometimes.

On the other hand, she might be certifiable and not simply inhuman. Which means our mental health program has failed, since she's obviously a danger to others...

I really wonder what is wrong with people sometimes.

On the other hand, she might be certifiable and not simply inhuman. Which means our mental health program has failed, since she's obviously a danger to others...

What mental health program?

BEFORE you can be committed, you MUST have demonstrated by ACTION that you are a danger to yourself and/or others.

That is, you MUST have attempted suicide OR you MUST have physically attacked someone - and usually that attack must constitute more than simple assault.

It's likely she's never done either of those before.

Even if committed, the duration is SHORT. In some cases, they can only hold you for 72 hours of observation - after which they MUST release you if you show no signs of further violence.

I really wonder what is wrong with people sometimes.


You mean people who skip an entire thread and miss the clarifying news stories posted in it and people pointing out that the woman miscarried rather than gave birth and insted jump to a conclusion without bothering to do any thinking or research?

Again, you are seeing what you want to see.

I see a pattern.

I am not defending this woman because she is a woman, I'm simply saying that we don't have all the information about what happened. Indeed, in all the many possible scenarios I presented, not a single one had anything to do with her being a woman and therefore being free of blame.

But you wouldn't have posted a defense in a thread about a man doing something wrong, now, would you?

I specifically and clearly provided scenarios that might excuse the actions in question, and not a single one was related to her femaleness. I suggested that perhaps she might have been mentally ill or disabled. Perhaps she actually was seeking help (something both males and females can do). Perhaps she was in shock (a condition that can occur in both males and females). Perhaps she was more seriously injured than the witnesses were aware of. None of this has anything to do with her being a woman in particular.

Yes, yes...dig up excuses for the woman.

You choose to view this situation through a profoundly sexist, misogynist lens, so you are going to see it in very gendered terms. I don't share your perspective. I see the woman in this situation as a person. Her gender isn't really relevant, beyond the pure biological realities of her physical participation in reproduction. The fact that she is female has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her actions were justified.

Yes, of course, labelling. How lovely, though not at all unexpected. I'm sexist and misogynist. Riiiight. I'm not the sexist one who needs to make excuses for the abhorrent bahaviour of women. Men = bad. Women? Whatever they do wrong, well, there must be a good reason for it.

Both men and women do fucked-up shit. You need to get over your gender problem. We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.

The second storey posted on about page 7 in this thread (whichever page it is in the first post of that page) is a lot more clear.

Thanks-Keep in mind, I generally dont read ten pages of stuff in here,because I cant justify filling my head with that much more mis-direction and insanity.

Even having read that link on page 7 too, I still dont feel like we have a ton of info to justify lynching this woman yet.

I am taking into account that the police are staying with her while she rec medical care,under suspicion of murder, which could indicate that it may have been more than a stillborn situation.

Either way,we have someone that has a serious problem-wether its a mental or physical health problem doesnt matter much.

Unless she has press conference today and says she hates babies and couldnt wait to squeeze it out so she could strangle it.

then,I'll want to throw a rock at her head too.

Let's see. Woman dumps baby on sidewalk. Baby dies. You defend woman, saying, "We don't know where she was going, what she was doing," etc. Heinous act, defended by "she's a woman, so we need to understand what she was feeling." I call bullshit.

Stillborn fetus. There was no baby. This was a 20-week-old fetus incapable of survival. It appears there was no umbellical cord. Stop calling it a baby. She did NOT give birth. She appears to have some form of mental disorder demonstrated by at least amnesia and you do NOT have the information needed to make any reasonable judgement on her behavior whatsoever.

But you wouldn't have posted a defense in a thread about a man doing something wrong, now, would you?

Check any single thread about male circumcision, raped males, etc. and you will find Bottle as one of the chief defenders of their right to immunity from bodily harm.
I think you're just seeing what you like to see.

I am taking into account that the police are staying with her while she rec medical care,under suspicion of murder, which could indicate that it may have been more than a stillborn situation.From what I read of the situation, it is merely a technicality. Everyone's pretty damn sure that the baby was stillborn, they just need to get official lab tests back so all the paper work can be filled in.

Yes, of course, labelling. How lovely, though not at all unexpected. I'm sexist and misogynist. Riiiight. I'm not the sexist one who needs to make excuses for the abhorrent bahaviour of women. Men = bad. Women? Whatever they do wrong, well, there must be a good reason for it.

Both men and women do fucked-up shit. You need to get over your gender problem. We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.Are you alright? It's just you seem to be very aggresive... and... well... you're aren't quite being the Cluich I seem to have come to expect.

Check any single thread about male circumcision, raped males, etc. and you will find Bottle as one of the chief defenders of their right to immunity from bodily harm.
I think you're just seeing what you like to see.

I think he means more defence of males when they appear to have done something bad.

I have to admit - Bottle does come across as a bit trigger happy towards males who might have transgressed.

But hey - free speech and all.

Are you alright? It's just you seem to be very aggresive... and... well... you're aren't quite being the Cluich I seem to have come to expect.

Maybe because I'm tired of Bottle's "don't question women" BS.

Funny, I've read quite a few of Bottle's posts. I've never gotten the impression that she thinks women should be able to do whatever they want because they don't have penises. In fact, Bottle seems to want to hold everyone as equally accountable for their actions, whether male or female.

Read 'em again.

Anyone can check your post history. I don't feel like doing their homework for them.

Funny, I've read quite a few of Bottle's posts. I've never gotten the impression that she thinks women should be able to do whatever they want because they don't have penises. In fact, Bottle seems to want to hold everyone as equally accountable for their actions, whether male or female.

You mean people who skip an entire thread and miss the clarifying news stories posted in it and people pointing out that the woman miscarried rather than gave birth and insted jump to a conclusion without bothering to do any thinking or research?

I cant follow links right now. I'm on my cell- phone browser. :(

But you wouldn't have posted a defense in a thread about a man doing something wrong, now, would you?

Why not? I have in the past. As you have pointed out, my post history is available for anybody to read.

I can remember, in particular, a thread from about a year back, in which a guy got beaten into a coma by some people who said they thought he was raping a woman. The story was initially presented as a lovely story about citizens coming to a woman's aid, but my first reaction was concern because there wasn't information provided about whether or not the guy was actually attacking the woman in the first place. The story simply said that a guy was beaten severely by a group of who claimed it was because he was raping somebody.

I believe one of my specific examples in defense of the fellow was the suggestion that he might have been trying to perform CPR or something. I know, kinda silly, but still...I think it is important to consider multiple possibilities until one gets more information.


Yes, yes...dig up excuses for the woman.

The person. Yes, it happens to be a female person, but so what? I know that her femaleness is really, really important to you, but it isn't that important to me.


Yes, of course, labelling. How lovely, though not at all unexpected. I'm sexist and misogynist. Riiiight. I'm not the sexist one who needs to make excuses for the abhorrent bahaviour of women. Men = bad. Women? Whatever they do wrong, well, there must be a good reason for it.

You are expressing sexist sentiments. You are expressing misogynist sentiments. You are making sexist and untrue statements about me, and are attempting personal attacks grounded in this same sexism. If you do not like being labeled as sexist or misogynist, you probably should consider not making sexist, misogynist statements so often.


Both men and women do fucked-up shit. You need to get over your gender problem.

What problem is that? I'm the one saying that the gender of the person in question is irrelevant to whether or not their actions were justified.


We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.
Please show where I claimed that the gender of the person in question had anything whatsoever to do with whether or not their actions were justified.

Both men and women do fucked-up shit. You need to get over your gender problem. We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.

Yes. Too much and too often and too quick to blame others.

like I said earlier,all I can suggest is people do their best personally and with the children they are raising.

And try to help people in obvious need if you can-If you cant,try to call someone that can.

Over the weekend,we saw some scumbag in Queens,NY punch a 101 year old woman in the face a few times. Totally unecessary for the commision of his crime-stealing her bag with a small amount of cash. Maybe his main purpose was to punch her and the cash was the icing on the cake.

But I also remember a hero jumping onto the subway tracks and keeping a guy having a siezure from getting run over by a train.

And there are much less dramatic acts of spontaneous,selfless kindness people do for total strangers every day. Not weighing wether the person is drunk or sober,dirty or clean,black or white,male or female-just helping out another human who obviously needs a hand.

Think to yourself who you'll be next time you see someone down-Are you the one that will talk to them and call for help,try to get the situation under control?
Or the one that walks by sneering with disgusted indifference because the victim prbably brought it on themselves?

I have to admit - Bottle does come across as a bit trigger happy towards males who might have transgressed.
I'm trigger-happy towards PEOPLE who have transgressed. I feel that I have pretty lax standards for human beings, basically just requiring people to show a minimum level of respect for others, and when somebody is unable to meet those standards I get really pissed because I feel like I'm asking very little. :P

I guess none of the fuckwits around here could watch a movie called Savior and feel any kind of sympathy for the woman played by Nastassia Kinski. Which in my book makes them about as respectable as the dudes who raped her.

Not to mention predatory jumping into conclusions to stone a woman to death before hearing shit about the evidence. Oh yes, it tells a lot about them.

Allahu akbar, assholes.

(sorry for any insulting of militant moslems much more reasonable and compassionate than some around here just to make a point)

Joona

But you wouldn't have posted a defense in a thread about a man doing something wrong, now, would you?

Do his actions suggest mental instability or physical shock? Did the man fail to save someone after going through a traumatic experience? If these things happened, I'm fairly certain Bottle would have reacted in much the same way.

Yes, yes...dig up excuses for the woman.

Not excuses, my dear. Possibilities. And, since the story is about a woman, one can't very well figure out possibilities for a man, now can we?

I suppose we could ask where the father of this baby was and what he would have done if he was there, but such questions are pretty useless, since we have zero information on him.

Yes, of course, labelling. How lovely, though not at all unexpected. I'm sexist and misogynist. Riiiight. I'm not the sexist one who needs to make excuses for the abhorrent bahaviour of women. Men = bad. Women? Whatever they do wrong, well, there must be a good reason for it.

Bottle hasn't said that there "must" be a good reason for it. She said there might be an explanation that isn't. "ZOMG, THIS WOMAN IS TEH DEBIL!"

Both men and women do fucked-up shit.

Indeed. And sometimes, it is because they are mentally instable. Or because they have just gone through a traumatic experience themselves. Or because they are confused and don't really know what's going on.

Or, sometimes, it's because they're just bad people. But that seems to happen less often than the others.

You need to get over your gender problem. We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.

The only person who seems to have a gender problem here is you. You're the one who came into a thread about a pregnant woman who miscarried chastising Bottle for....what? Not taking an objective look at the actions of an imaginary man in the same situation?

No, I am referring to the Democratic Party, and their philosophy of the "nanny-state". Where the only reason our kids suck in school is because the state isn't spending enough money - not because the parents are irresponsible fucks who can't raise their kids to value education, and not because the kids are fucking chavs who know that the state will take care of them even if they're completely irresponsible.

I know what you're referring to, but your bias is clouding your judgement. Both parties deny responsibility for EVERYTHING and constantly blame this or that for their actions. Bush isn't responsible for the war. It was bad intelligence. Bush wasn't responsible for the leak. It was Libby. Bush wasn't responsible for the bad policies in Iraq that was Rumsfeld. Bush wasn't responsible for the bad handling of NO that was Michael Brown. Bush wasn't responsible for not handling terrorism. That was Richard Clark's fault. It's interesting that the party of "responsibility" has all this blame going around and not once has the "buck stopped here" so to speak.

And, yes, all of these people are responsible ALSO. For the most part you want to look for a group unwilling to take responsibility for their actions just look for somebody calling themselves a politician.

I think he means more defence of males when they appear to have done something bad.
Oooh, and I just remembered an even MORE directly relevant example of my "defense" of a dude!

I don't remember how far back this was, but there was that case of the couple who left their baby in a trash can at a motel before returning to dance at their prom. A lot of reactions on that thread were like the ones on this thread: kill the teens, beat them, sterilize them, rape the girl and beat up the boy, jail them forever, etc etc etc. My responses were more along the lines of, "WHY did they do this? What could have been done to prevent it? Why would kids make choices like this?" I defended both kids equally, the guy and the girl, and I gave people shit for their vicious and violent fantasies about hurting the teens.

This thread is more about a story that horrendous anyway the facts shake out.

Its not about how one poster tends to lean on this thread or on passed threads.

You're all fucking doomed and its already too late if I somehow become the calm peaceful voice of reason.

The only person who seems to have a gender problem here is you. You're the one who came into a thread about a pregnant woman who miscarried chastising Bottle for....what? Not taking an objective look at the actions of an imaginary man in the same situation?

Nice try. :rolleyes:

I see a pattern.

Then it should be easy to evidence. I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath.

But you wouldn't have posted a defense in a thread about a man doing something wrong, now, would you?

Support this assertion.

Yes, yes...dig up excuses for the woman.

Dig up excuses? You mean, dig up the facts of the case? Present the evidence? Assume innocence as is our tendency in this country?

Yes, of course, labelling. How lovely, though not at all unexpected. I'm sexist and misogynist. Riiiight. I'm not the sexist one who needs to make excuses for the abhorrent bahaviour of women. Men = bad. Women? Whatever they do wrong, well, there must be a good reason for it.

Both men and women do fucked-up shit. You need to get over your gender problem. We're all people. We all do fucked-up shit. Not having a penis doesn't earn one a free pass.


Hmmm... hypocrite much?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419109&postcount=167
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419149&postcount=177

You expend several posts to attack Bottle with absolutely no evidence despite the FACT that she actively acknowledges this woman could be a messed-up human being. You're attacking her for giving the woman the benefit of the doubt since the facts of the case really don't support that she even committed a crime let alone that she should be ostracized for it.

Oooh, and I just remembered an even MORE directly relevant example of my "defense" of a dude!

I don't remember how far back this was, but there was that case of the couple who left their baby in a trash can at a motel before returning to dance at their prom. A lot of reactions on that thread were like the ones on this thread: kill the teens, beat them, sterilize them, rape the girl and beat up the boy, jail them forever, etc etc etc. My responses were more along the lines of, "WHY did they do this? What could have been done to prevent it? Why would kids make choices like this?" I defended both kids equally, the guy and the girl, and I gave people shit for their vicious and violent fantasies about hurting the teens.

Maybe,but underneath all that common sense,I could just feel you were mad at my penis.

I cant follow links right now. I'm on my cell- phone browser. :(Aww, come on. I even made an executive summary for those would be lazy enough not to click the link. Though I didn't think anyone wouldn't be able to check the article out because they were using their cell-phone browser. Anyway, it's the first post on page 7.

Hmmm... hypocrite much?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419109&postcount=167
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419149&postcount=177

You expend several posts to attack Bottle with absolutely no evidence despite the FACT that she actively acknowledges this woman could be a messed-up human being. You're attacking her for giving the woman the benefit of the doubt since the facts of the case really don't support that she even committed a crime let alone that she should be ostracized for it.

Hmmm...personal grudge much? :rolleyes:

Read her post history.

And um, let's see...read the facts of the case in point and try again.

I'm trigger-happy towards PEOPLE who have transgressed. I feel that I have pretty lax standards for human beings, basically just requiring people to show a minimum level of respect for others, and when somebody is unable to meet those standards I get really pissed because I feel like I'm asking very little. :P

Hmmm... the impression I often get from your posting is that you're quite trigger happy towards males, but when women are involved in an apparent transgression you seem a lot more willing to find mitigating circumstances.

I have noticed that once it the situation is fully known and it is clear the person is fully in the wrong that you get pretty pissed at them regardless of their gender, however even then you seem to go after a woman in the wrong with considerably less enthuasim than you go after scumbag guys. With the exception of women who you suspect are promoting women as nothing more than sex objects and don't like non-barbie women.

I'm not bothered by this - I think it's strange how people are complaining about it though - as though they expect you to fight their battles or something.

Hmmm... the impression I often get from your posting is that you're quite trigger happy towards males, but when women are involved in an apparent transgression you seem a lot more willing to find mitigating circumstances.

QFT.

Hmmm...personal grudge much? :rolleyes:

Read her post history.

And um, let's see...read the facts of the case in point and try again.

Yes, yes. I'm out to get you. I noticed it's me that arrived her to attack a poster personally. Oh, wait, wasn't that you?

Again, you've been asked to present evidence of your personal claims about Bottle. You've provided none. Your link had no results. All you have to do is present one thing she said in this thread that suggests she is giving unfair bias to this woman.

In fact, isn't your entire argument that this woman gave birth to a baby, something that did not happen? The evidence for bias is all on your plate, baby. Eat it up. It tastes good with relish.

Yes, yes. I'm out to get you. I noticed it's me that arrived her to attack a poster personally. Oh, wait, wasn't that you?

No, actually, that was you. Run along. It's been almost a year. Get over it.

Although I suppose you'd rather stick around until you can find some minor transgression for which you can report me in the Moderation forum. :rolleyes:

Aww, come on. I even made an executive summary for those would be lazy enough not to click the link. Though I didn't think anyone wouldn't be able to check the article out because they were using their cell-phone browser. Anyway, it's the first post on page 7.

Hooray for American cell phones being behind the times. Half the pages won't load with the Cingular browser (Amazingly enough 90% load with Opera Mini). I haven't had a chance to re-install Opera Mini, so I'm terribly limited in surfing capabilities. I'll go back to page 7 tho.

Asshattery is clearly your forté.

Yes, can someone please link to a 20-week-old fetus with no umbellical cord that survived? I'd be interested to see that one. While I'm reluctant to call it asshattery, all evidence suggests that some people just really want this woman to be evil and will attack anything and anyone that points out the facts of this case.

Sorry, kids that premature have lived.

Asshattery is clearly your forté.

Asshattery is clearly your forté.

you know we dont need this

Yes, can someone please link to a 20-week-old fetus with no umbellical cord that survived? I'd be interested to see that one. While I'm reluctant to call it asshattery, all evidence suggests that some people just really want this woman to be evil and will attack anything and anyone that points out the facts of this case.

He/she linked to a news article stating that the youngest a child has ever been born and survived was 22 weeks - and that that child was born in an intensive care unit that knew the child was coming a week in advance (they delayed the delivery) and had time to prepare and ahve all the specialist intensive care equipment ready the moment the baby was born.

Personally it seemed more like proof that a baby born on a pavement at 20 weeks could not have possibly survived - assuming it was actually alive to start with. They then went off on a different tangent to escape from their obvious error.

No, actually, that was you. Run along. It's been almost a year. Get over it.

What has been over a year? I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know you. I've encountered you, but I have virtually no opinion of you other than you recently spammed a lot and that you think your more important to me than you are.

I didn't attack you. I'm arguing with you about what you're saying Bottle is doing. She's not. You've not shown she has. You've rejected repeated challenges to provide evidence. This has nothing to do with you who you are as a person. You need to learn the difference between arguments and the person. I don't know you as a person and I really could care less about you or your self-important and paranoid claims that I'm out to get you.

Although I suppose you'd rather stick around until you can find some minor transgression for which you can report me in the Moderation forum. :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. Clearly, I have it out for you. I forced you to post so many pictures so I could report and then I logged into my position as mod so I could then rule against. Or perhaps, I noticed a repeated transgression in multiple threads I was in and I reported it. The mods looked at the same posts I saw and drew the same conclusion and ruled on it. Again, if you have evidence that Bottle is a man-hater and that she is unreasonably defending this woman present it. If you have evidence that I have a personal vendetta against you, present it. At present, you're sounding a bit paranoid.

He/she linked to a news article stating that the youngest a child has ever been born and survived was 22 weeks - and that that child was born in an intensive care unit that knew the child was coming a week in advance (they delayed the delivery) and had time to prepare and ahve all the specialist intensive care equipment ready the moment the baby was born.

Personally it seemed more like proof that a baby born on a pavement at 20 weeks could not have possibly survived - assuming it was actually alive to start with. They then went off on a different tangent to escape from their obvious error.

Oh, I'm aware. I like to continue to call people on their fallacious arguments when they try to weasel out of them. I'll list a few -

She birthed a baby.
It was murder.
Insanity doesn't exist.
That this "baby" could have survived.
That the people who witnessed this didn't do anything about it.
Bottle is unreasonably defending this woman by mentioning that the above is unsupported and that her reason for doing so is a hatred for penises.
I have a vendetta against the same person who said the above because I asked for evidence.

Oh, I'm aware. I like to continue to call people on their fallacious arguments when they try to weasel out of them. I'll list a few -

She birthed a baby.
It was murder.
Insanity doesn't exist.
That this "baby" could have survived.
That the people who witnessed this didn't do anything about it.
Bottle is unreasonably defending this woman by mentioning that the above is unsupported and that her reason for doing so is a hatred for penises.
I have a vendetta against the same person who said the above because I asked for evidence.

It's been a pretty slow day on NSG for idiotic statements really hasn't it.

:)

you know we dont need this

I disagree. I'd say that my comment was rather desperately needed, perhaps more so than DK's foolish observation.

It's been a pretty slow day on NSG for idiotic statements really hasn't it.

:)

Not really. I mean we have two threads by NM stating openly that he doesn't believe what he's posting but because he pretends to it is somehow evidence that global warming doesn't occur. And we have at least two threads I've seen where people are either claiming something about vendettas. It's not even noon here and I get the impression we're just warming up. I expect it to be a standard day with all the trimmings.

Not really. I mean we have two threads by NM stating openly that he doesn't believe what he's posting but because he pretends to it is somehow evidence that global warming doesn't occur. It's not even noon here and I get the impression we're just warming up. I expect it to be a standard day with all the trimmings.

Why don't you take 2 mg of Xanax, and have a seat?

Why don't you take 2 mg of Xanax, and have a seat?

Um... and this addresses your claim that this fetus would have survived how? Please provide a link that demonstrates the survivability of a fetus that was birthed at 20 weeks. Please provide a link of a fetus that survived at 20 weeks when the preterm labor was sudden. Please provide a link of the survival of a fetus with no umbellical cord. Please provide evidence and not just random and absurd statements or personal attacks.

EDIT: Pray tell, what anxiety disorder or form of depression are you diagnosing me with?

Um... and this addresses your claim that this fetus would have survived how? Please provide a link that demonstrates the survivability of a fetus that was birthed at 20 weeks. Please provide a link of a fetus that survived at 20 weeks when the preterm labor was sudden. Please provide a link of the survival of a fetus with no umbellical cord. Please provide evidence and not just random and absurd statements or personal attacks.

EDIT: Pray tell, what anxiety disorder or form of depression are you diagnosing me with?

I already posted one at 22 weeks, a time formerly thought impossible.

Saying something is impossible in medical science (such as 20 weeks) is an inane thing to say.

Tell me you actually read my posts - in fact, answer one of the points I raised - that the common person would not know the difference between 20 and 22 weeks if it were laying on the pavement.

I wouldn't. So I would pick it up and call 911.

Anything else is "making a diagnosis". Police who "make a diagnosis" of "death" without being a doctor lose their jobs. Civilians can be sued for it. "Oh, I didn't give CPR because I thought he was already dead..."

Hmmm... the impression I often get from your posting is that you're quite trigger happy towards males, but when women are involved in an apparent transgression you seem a lot more willing to find mitigating circumstances.

It's funny, but I've actually had people say exactly the opposite around here. I'm frequently told that I'm too harsh on women and don't allow more excuses based on circumstance. I have very little patience for people who do stupid things and then blame the media or whatever, and lots of people have told me that this leads me to be too harsh with women who do stupid things as a result of what I consider nothing more than elaborate peer pressure.

Meh.

All of this is irrelevant, of course. Nobody has yet provided a single example of me excusing somebody because they are female, or advocating that a man receive harsher punishment by virtue of being male. Nobody has yet provide a single instance in which I held up an individuals gender as the specific reason why they should be excused or punished for a given action. Probably because I don't do this.


I have noticed that once it the situation is fully known and it is clear the person is fully in the wrong that you get pretty pissed at them regardless of their gender, however even then you seem to go after a woman in the wrong with considerably less enthuasim than you go after scumbag guys. With the exception of women who you suspect are promoting women as nothing more than sex objects and don't like non-barbie women.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this may have to do with the fact that most cases we encounter around here happen to have more examples of males doing shitty stuff than females doing shitty stuff. Because of the gender-bias of the sample, it's kind of inevitable that there will be a gender-bias in my responses. In other words, if you provide 100 examples of males behaving badly and then 10 examples of females behaving badly, this will make a difference.

Also, most of the examples we see of females behaving badly tend to revolve around sex and reproduction (whereas male examples tend to cover a much wider range of topics), so my personal politics on sex and reproduction will create bias that doesn't necessarily relate to the actual genders in question.


I'm not bothered by this - I think it's strange how people are complaining about it though - as though they expect you to fight their battles or something.
It's a fun hijack, no?

I guess my personal opinions and biases are just so damn important that people can't manage to stick to the topic. Cluichstan appears completely unable to actually address specific points or provide any examples of anything whatsoever, because the fact that I have opinions is so distracting. I'm flattered, of course, but I would really prefer to discuss the topic at hand.

My personal bias is irrelevant to this topic. If Cluichstan, or anybody else, feels that I am excusing these behaviors because of the gender of the parties involved, they are welcome to provide examples of where I have done this. They are welcome to take me to task, along with anybody else who does that. But all these random complaints about my personal politics are wasting time and distracting from an otherwise interesting thread.

I'd like to say that this is my last word on the subject of my perceived biases, but I'm sure somebody will bait me back into it soon enough. :D

I already posted one at 22 weeks, a time formerly thought impossible.

Two weeks is a long time in terms of the development of the infant. The major detractor from an earlier delivery is the development of the lungs which are primarily developing in the time frame. But you knew that right? There's a reason no 20-week-olds have been born yet. It's not because we just give up. It's because we've failed thus far.



Saying something is impossible in medical science (such as 20 weeks) is an inane thing to say.

No one said it is impossible. We said it cannot be done today. That doesn't mean never. It's scientific concensus that we don't have the technology or the know-how. That may change. It probably will. Say that this fetus could have been born when no fetus this age has EVER been born even under perfect conditions is more inane.


Tell me you actually read my posts - in fact, answer one of the points I raised - that the common person would not know the difference between 20 and 22 weeks if it were laying on the pavement.

What does that have to do with anything? Tell me that the common person would be able to do ANYTHING to help a fetus on the pavement at that level of gestation anyway.

Or how about this... what evidence do you have that no one did anything?


I wouldn't. So I would pick it up and call 911.

Which appears to be exactly what people did.

She had every reason to know how long the gestation was. It was her gestation. Here's a question... what's the youngest fetus to survive a birth on a sidewalk? I'll wait.

Anything else is "making a diagnosis". Police who "make a diagnosis" of "death" without being a doctor lose their jobs. Civilians can be sued for it. "Oh, I didn't give CPR because I thought he was already dead..."

Evidence, please? Police make that diagnosis all the time. And I'd venture that very few policemen are doctors. You think everytime they happen upon a body they attempt CPR. That would be ludicrous.

Meanwhile, I assure you I could identify a stillbirth with little difficulty. Also, have you seen the level of development of a 20-week-old. Attempting CPR without be qualified would only ensure it didn't survive. People can also be sued for botching CPR.

What does that have to do with anything? Tell me that the common person would be able to do ANYTHING to help a fetus on the pavement at that level of gestation anyway.


You're the one saying that we can tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. And are legally qualified to make that decision.

She had every reason to know how long the gestation was. It was her gestation. Here's a question... what's the youngest fetus to survive a birth on a sidewalk? I'll wait.
I've met women who don't know their gestation week. And the last question you asked is irrelevant.

You're saying that "well, since it's a fetus, it's fucking hopeless, so don't bother to help or call 911".



Evidence, please?

Meanwhile, I assure you I could identify a stillbirth with little difficulty.

If you weren't a doctor, and failed to summon help based on that decision, you could be sued very easily here in the US.

It's standard police policy to call EMS - because the policeman is NOT qualified to make any decision based on "oh, they're dead, so let's fill out our reports before calling the meat wagon".

Civilians are sued on that basis as well. Know CPR? If you fail to help someone, and you admit that you knew CPR, and said, "Well, the guy is already dead, so I'm going home" to the assembled crowd, his relatives would OWN you.

Oddly, I have found you a bit harsh toward women as if they embarrass you by virture of being your gender (in cases where they do something you don't like). Not so much as to render your arguments nonsensical, but I've probably mentioned it a time or two. Usually with both "sides" claim you are biased against them it's because you are equally harsh. I find the same thing with complaints of mod bias against Christians, Atheists, the right, the left, people with an extra toe, etc.

I find it amusing that the claim is that your behavior is SOOOO apparent that he can't find any examples for his claim. Odd, that is.

I find Bottle harder on heteros in general.

I'd like to say that I agree with whoever it was on the first page that said bystanders should have called paramedics as soon as she fell and started giving birth. Because yes, it is completely possible that it might have survived if it had medical care, and yes it is completely possible that the woman was mentally insufficient, and yes it is possible that she just didn't want the baby. In any case, I refuse to make a judgement on her due to lack of unbiased information.

Seriously people, the media likes to put this little thing called 'spin' in it's info. The way they word this it's like the baby just dropped out of her, which just dosn't happen. Not to mention that the eyewitness they interviewed seemed to be either elaborating or enlarging the situation out of shock.

News is entertainment. They pick what they want and spin it to get ratings. You'll learn that in any basic journalism class.

It's funny, but I've actually had people say exactly the opposite around here. I'm frequently told that I'm too harsh on women and don't allow more excuses based on circumstance. I have very little patience for people who do stupid things and then blame the media or whatever, and lots of people have told me that this leads me to be too harsh with women who do stupid things as a result of what I consider nothing more than elaborate peer pressure.

Meh.

All of this is irrelevant, of course. Nobody has yet provided a single example of me excusing somebody because they are female, or advocating that a man receive harsher punishment by virtue of being male. Nobody has yet provide a single instance in which I held up an individuals gender as the specific reason why they should be excused or punished for a given action. Probably because I don't do this.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this may have to do with the fact that most cases we encounter around here happen to have more examples of males doing shitty stuff than females doing shitty stuff. Because of the gender-bias of the sample, it's kind of inevitable that there will be a gender-bias in my responses. In other words, if you provide 100 examples of males behaving badly and then 10 examples of females behaving badly, this will make a difference.

Also, most of the examples we see of females behaving badly tend to revolve around sex and reproduction (whereas male examples tend to cover a much wider range of topics), so my personal politics on sex and reproduction will create bias that doesn't necessarily relate to the actual genders in question.


It's a fun hijack, no?

I guess my personal opinions and biases are just so damn important that people can't manage to stick to the topic. Cluichstan appears completely unable to actually address specific points or provide any examples of anything whatsoever, because the fact that I have opinions is so distracting. I'm flattered, of course, but I would really prefer to discuss the topic at hand.

My personal bias is irrelevant to this topic. If Cluichstan, or anybody else, feels that I am excusing these behaviors because of the gender of the parties involved, they are welcome to provide examples of where I have done this. They are welcome to take me to task, along with anybody else who does that. But all these random complaints about my personal politics are wasting time and distracting from an otherwise interesting thread.

I'd like to say that this is my last word on the subject of my perceived biases, but I'm sure somebody will bait me back into it soon enough. :D

Oddly, I have found you a bit harsh toward women as if they embarrass you by virture of being your gender (in cases where they do something you don't like). Not so much as to render your arguments nonsensical, but I've probably mentioned it a time or two. Usually with both "sides" claim you are biased against them it's because you are equally harsh. I find the same thing with complaints of mod bias against Christians, Atheists, the right, the left, people with an extra toe, etc.

I find it amusing that the claim is that your behavior is SOOOO apparent that he can't find any examples for his claim. Odd, that is.

I find Bottle harder on people who aren't Bottle, but then we can rarely talk about her real-life actions since none of us know her in real life.

I've seen her joke about heteros mostly in parody of how gays and bis are often reference, but even if what you say is true, how is that relevant?

It's as relevant as the stuff you posted about Bottle. Or are you the only person on the forum qualified to post about Bottle?

Mmm?

Oh, and as for declaring death - call your local police (assuming you're in the US), and ask them if an ordinary police officer is allowed to declare a person dead in your jurisdiction. Or do they have to call EMS and the coroner for a declaration?

You're the one saying that we can tell the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus. And are legally qualified to make that decision.

Pardon? I'm the one saying that we can tell that THIS fetus was not viable. This fetus. I can tell that a fetus with no head is not viable as well. I can also tell the difference between a fatal illness and a non-fatal illness if it's far enough from the line. This one isn't even close to line. In an ideal situation, it's NEVER been done. This wasn't even close to an ideal situation. To suggest that we should assume the fetus could have survived against all evidence is simply burying your head in the sand.



I've met women who don't know their gestation week. And the last question you asked is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? You claimed this fetus could have survived. The situation the fetus was in isn't relevant? I'm sure that's true unless we actually want to examine the situation logically, something you appear to be avoiding.


You're saying that "well, since it's a fetus, it's fucking hopeless, so don't bother to help or call 911".

I am? Quote me. I said, they didn't call 911. I am saying that I would not touch it. It was hopeless. And seeing that I'm not qualified even if their was hope my help could only make matters worse.



If you weren't a doctor, and failed to summon help based on that decision, you could be sued very easily here in the US.

Again, what evidence do you have that no one summoned help? The fact that she was found very near to scene suggests that help was summoned almost immediately. If you have other evidence, please present it and stop making absurd claims.


It's standard police policy to call EMS - because the policeman is NOT qualified to make any decision based on "oh, they're dead, so let's fill out our reports before calling the meat wagon".

It's standard policy to call EMS whether the person is dead or not. Always. EMS is the meat wagon. Meanwhile, EMS was summoned so this is a red herring.


Civilians are sued on that basis as well. Know CPR? If you fail to help someone, and you admit that you knew CPR, and said, "Well, the guy is already dead, so I'm going home" to the assembled crowd, his relatives would OWN you.

Evidence, please.

Because yes, it is completely possible that it might have survived if it had medical care

As several people already pointed out the youngest surviving fetus ever was two weeks older and born in a fully prepared hospital. So that possibility is quite minute...

As several people already pointed out the youngest surviving fetus ever was two weeks older and born in a fully prepared hospital. So that possibility is quite minute...

Yes, but there's still a slim margin of possibility. Without unbiased information, there's no telling what could be true and what couldn't. All we're doing here is grasping at straws. Which is my entire point. If you make a judgment either way, it'll be biased.

And with that, I'm late to class. Crap.

I find Bottle harder on heteros in general.

I find Bottle harder on people who aren't Bottle, but then we can rarely talk about her real-life actions since none of us know her in real life.

I've seen her joke about heteros mostly in parody of how gays and bis are often reference, but even if what you say is true, how is that relevant?

Yes, but there's still a slim margin of possibility. Without unbiased information, there's no telling what could be true and what couldn't. All we're doing here is grasping at straws. Which is my entire point. If you make a judgment either way, it'll be biased.

And with that, I'm late to class. Crap.

That slim margin of possibility is akin with the likelihood that this woman was impregnated by aliens. It's possible, but it's never happened in all of medical history and all conditions suggest otherwise. The certainty that this fetus would not survive exceeds the level certainty that can be found in nearly all medical decisions.

I find Bottle harder on heteros in general.

Yes, she makes heteros very hard.

*dodges flung poo*

A police officer cannot legally declare a person dead. Only medical professionals can do so. However, no one is going to fault a police officer who doesn't give CPR to an obviously dead body.

It has to be pretty obvious - like the head is missing.

Oh, and as for declaring death - call your local police (assuming you're in the US), and ask them if an ordinary police officer is allowed to declare a person dead in your jurisdiction. Or do they have to call EMS and the coroner for a declaration?

A police officer cannot legally declare a person dead. Only medical professionals can do so. However, no one is going to fault a police officer who doesn't give CPR to an obviously dead body.