Anna Nicole Smith Dead

Wow - the whole story looks so incredibly sad.

(February 8, 2007)— One-time Mexia chicken restaurant waitress turned Playboy model turned heiress turned reality TV star Anna Nicole Smith died Thursday afternoon after she was found unconscious in her hotel room at the Hard Rock Cafe and Casino in Hollywood, Fla., a law enforcement source told CNN.

link here, too but everything is crashing on this for the moment.

Comments

[Cindi]

Neither, in my company there would not have been a parent leaving a 2 year old alone in the care of strangers. Is this the same kid left alone as a teen to be raped by a step father with a AIDs infested wing-wong?

[Purple Avenger]

Let me expand. The partial birth stuff comes down pretty black and white. If the kid slips out and you suck its brains, then its murder. If it stays put for a few seconds then you're "legal".

Law is full of completely arbitrary limits.

18 years old to vote. 21 to drink. 25 to be a rep, 30 for senator, 55mph speed limit, 70mph speed limit, BAC limits for DUI, etc.

I don't give damn what those arbitrary limits are, but you'd better have some if you want an enforcible law.

I have no idea what the answer is, which is why I'm asking you since you threw out the ultra-vague "viable" term initially.

[Purple Avenger]

BTW, fertility clinics would be considered "patient care areas" by the building and electrical codes and would require sprinklers, and a slew of emergency systems not unlike a hospital. The chances of your fire happening in one are slim and none.

[scarshapedstar]

Why doesn't anyone ever give a straight answer? I can tell you with 100% certainty, I'd save the kid. Without hesitation. Without regret. Doesn't matter whether it's a burning building, a plane falling out of the sky, a house sitting on a fault line, or a sinking ship, I'm not gonna dicker around: I'm saving the living, breathing human being and so would everyone I know.

And, for the record, the law is full of gray areas. Show me a scientific proof or a number that determines intent and differentiates between murder and manslaughter.

[darcy_lane]

Dan is so despondant over Anna Nicole he's suspended blogging? :(

[Cindi]

He'll be back ;)

[Purple Avenger]

"Why doesn't anyone ever give a straight answer?"

OK, you're avoiding the question. How's that for a straight answer.

Just define "viable" as you would have it be defined in some legislation and we can move on to the discussion of how that definition that will make viable legislation or not.

[seekeronos]

The question of saving a living child over a petri dish full of fertilized eggs is a bit of a non-sequitur. Libs seem to thrive on throwing questions into a discussion that lack relevance to the main issue.

Of course, it would make no sense to leave a toddler or a post-partum baby to die at the expense of an improperly secured petri dish, regardless if it had the cure to AIDs and seven forms of cancer in it, or was some junk previously sitting in the back of the fridge collecting mold.

This quesstion is non-sensical, and only serves to be a wedge.

First off, it makes no scientific sense to have a dish full of 1000 fertilized eggs laying around the lab exposed to a situation where it could catch fire... (or several dishes sitting out for that matter). It is not even an accurate reflection of IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedure.

Those eggs are only viable (meaning: able to exist without implanting into a uterus) for a very limited amount of time, in the neighborhood of 2-3 days. Also, oocytes (egs) are not typically harvested by the hundreds or thousands from any one female, more likely a couple dozen at the most. Consider how uncomfortable ovulating one egg is each month (guys: ask your wives or girlfriends about ths if not sure - I am told for some women, one of whom is my wife - that it is equivalent to the pain of getting kicked in the nuts but only stretched out over a period of several hours or even days).

Even with sedation, I would not want to imagine what it would be like for a doctor to pluck a dozen of them out each ovary would be like.

In vitro procedure usually involves about 3-4 embryos being surgically implanted into the mother's uterus. Due to a limited amount of uterine space, and the relative unnaturalness of surgical implantation, hormonal issues, and a plethora of other reasons... only one or two embryos will properly attach and/or survive to term; however, twinning seems to be quite common with IVF, occurrring about 25% of the implantations.

Since we like to have more exact definitions of exactly when life begins... let us look at some contested views:

1) Moment of conception. In a normal (in utero) conception, the blastocyst (what Mr. Sperm and Miss Egg fuse to become) contains enough genetic goo (46 chromosomes) to begin replicating all of those lovely stem cells that eventually make a fetus - a pre-partum baby. I am leery of making a distinction either way as to the "viability" of the blastocyst as an individual human life... because there are plenty of cases where blastocysts may not properly implant, and die in utero... and pass out of the mother when the next menses occurs.

On the other hand, we might want to classify unimplanted blastocysts as individuals to avoid opening up the Pandora's box of stem cell research for reasons connected to eugenics or cloning. This is not to say that there are not any benign goals in stem cell research, particularly f harvesting cells from a post-natal person for use in treating or researching a condition linked to that patient. Besides, there are other methods of harvesting stem cells that do not require the destruction of blastocysts.

2) Moment of implantation. Whether implanted by natural pregnancy, or through the agency of in vitro fertilization (IVF), there is a far greater chance of it surviving to term. I prefer to look at this as the earliest point at which we could regard the embryo as a living, individual human being. This is as completely arbritrary as any other view, but prior to implantation, there is very little guarantee of the embryo's survival.

3) First Trimester (approx. 13 weeks) - By this time, the growing baby has a heartbeat, hands, feet, and a brain. For some of you libs, this is the optimal time to start smoking massive amounts of dope to ensure that your new child turns out just like its parents. Clearly, the child (regardless of the pharmacological or political stances of its parents) is clearly identifiable as a living being. All that hinders it from independent existence is a matter of time and pre-natal maturation. For me, I have a very hard time justifying a termination of a pregnancy from this point onward, even if rape or the extremely rare cases of incest were used as a case for termination.

4) Dilated Cervix, but no heads popping thru the poonanie: Only the most insensitive and brutal people would wish to kill a child being born at this point. This is the ugly criteria some judge as "partial birth abortions".

5) Head (or less likely "breech", which would precipitate a C-section) "breaking the plane of the end zone" (or in other than sports terms, the baby has presented part of itself through the vagina). Aborting the child at this point is nothing but pre-meditated murder, pure and simple.

As for Scar's murder vs. manslaughter... those are defined largely by state laws and other statues; if I recall correctly, murder is generally pre-meditated and/or carried out with malicious intent, as the direct goal of the perpretrator's criminal action, whereas manslaughter largely results in a victim's death, but not as the direct goal of the crime.

For example, someone commits a DUI and drives off, wrecks into another car, and kills the occupants of the other car. This would result in a manslaughter charge (vehicular manslaughter) in NY State. By contrast, running someone over, or deliberately colliding your car into another car with intent to injure or kill its occupants could result in (attempted or actual) murder charges.

[seekeronos]

On my last post, EDIT point (1) to remove "In a normal (in utero) conception, the blastocyst..." to read "At conception, the blatocyst....etc"

I forgot to clean that up as my response was taking shape.

[Zifnab]

"I have no idea what the answer is, which is why I'm asking you since you threw out the ultra-vague 'viable' term initially."

I believe the original line-in-the-sand was drawn by trimester, which I consider to be an incredibly sane and reasonable place to draw the line. You cannot have an abortion after the 1st/2nd/3rd trimester, as determined by when the egg was fertilized. There is an abundantly clear difference between a zygote and a fetus. Bam, you've got your line in the sand.

Unfortunately, many "pro-life"ers (ironically often the same guys who support foreign wars, political assassinations, and the death penalty) decided to muddy the waters and declare that every sperm is sacred. Suddenly, the burden of proof is on the defense that an embryo can't feel pain. Outright lies and propoganda about condom failure get federal tax funding while outright lies and propoganda about the risks of the abortion procedure itself become state law. "Mandatory waiting periods" before abortions bring the child farther along to term, increasing the risk associated with the operation. And doctors who would normally be skilled enough to make the procedure as safe, harmless, and painless as possible are harassed out of the field, leaving pregnant women to the tender mercies of whatever backroom butchers they can afford. This while picketters are allowed to violate and harass anyone who comes within fifty feet of a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"Pro-life" in America, today, translates to "false advertising", "mob justice", and "unthinking hatred". It's become a political catch-phrase designed scare money and votes out of Middle America while the real causes of abortion - poverty, drugs, crime, and unemployment - go unaddressed. Classic "treat the symptom, not the disease". Like popping a zit and being shocked when your whole face gets infected. The Republicans can't win a military war, and they can't win a culture war. They can only get a whole bunch of people maimed or killed in the crossfire.

[scarshapedstar]

I am not Rob so I don't really think the onus is on me to define "viable". But I'm generally in agreement with Roe v. Wade. If the fetus can be kept alive outside the mother without incurring significant developmental problems, then I suppose it's viable. However, in any case, the mother is more viable than the fetus and so I'd defer to her wishes.

Also, Seekeronos, this jumps out at me.

"The question of saving a living child over a petri dish full of fertilized eggs is a bit of a non-sequitur. Libs seem to thrive on throwing questions into a discussion that lack relevance to the main issue."

Oh? Really? So you're saying that there's nobody in this debate who claims that even fertilized eggs should be protected? That's a complete non sequitur? You SURE about that?

Why, then, all the opposition to the "morning-after pill"? I could have sworn that many anti-abortion activists claim there's no difference between preventing the implantation of a 12-hour-old egg and performing a "partial-birth abortion". Or, even, letting a 2-year-old die in a fire.

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't really think the onus is on me to define "viable"."

OK, but there is an onus on anyone who would talk of legislation of any sort to define their terms well.

"without incurring significant developmental problems, then I suppose it's viable."

This requires an opinion. Opinions are problematic when injected into law. Its also hard to determine crisply without actually performing the act of removing it and seeing how it does.

No matter what the opinions of either side here (I'm a pro-choice moderate BTW), the bottom line is that law is involved. When law is involved, things need to be in terms courts can understand. Emotional arguments on both sides make for entertaining debate and great sport out on the street, but they make for poor law that courts might actually be able to enforce.

3rd trimester abortions of seemingly healthy babies make me queasy.
Partial birth abortions of seemingly healthy babies make me REAL queasy.
Morning after pills don't bother me at all.

Clearly if law says someone must go through with delivery after the arbitrarily chosen cutoff point, there needs to be a responsibility escape clause of some sort since law is compelling them to do something they don't want. If someone doesn't want a kid, compelling them to be responsible for the kid does nobody any favors. The kid would be better off in a foster home or orphanage. Too many kids growing up with unfit parents as it is. We don't need any more.

I believe there should be some sort of limit on the number of time one can play this game too before there's some societal blowback. If you keep popping them out, giving them up hanging the public with the bill each time, that needs to be addressed too because its abusive of the public goodwill. One "mistake" OK. Two maybe. Three starts to push our tolerance awfully hard.

[Zifnab]

"I believe there should be some sort of limit on the number of time one can play this game too before there's some societal blowback. If you keep popping them out, giving them up hanging the public with the bill each time, that needs to be addressed too because its abusive of the public goodwill. One 'mistake' OK. Two maybe. Three starts to push our tolerance awfully hard."

That, of course, still depends on the circumstances. Take the rape case. If you get raped once, and you get pregnant and give the baby up for adoption is that considered a "strike" on your record? Also, I haven't seen a great deal of public interest in creating, maintaining, or improving the orphanage and foster care systems that are currently in place. If the pro-life stats are right, and approximately one million babies a year are aborted, then how do we handle these one million extra citizens? The Republican solution seems to be "no abortions, and to hell with the kids". I haven't seen a single anti-Abortion bill that gives reasonable support to maternity wards, foster care centers, single mothers, or abandoned children.

I mean, in principle, I'm totally against abortion too. That's why I encourage birth control, condom use, and universal health coverage for children and pregnant women. But the current administration seems to frown on all of those things. So you're left with the devil's bargain - miserable new young lives or a bloody death to a quasi-human.

[Purple Avenger]

"If you get raped once, and you get pregnant"

Law is about details - this is one of them. I don't favor compelling someone to carry a rapist's baby. That victimizes them twice.

"then how do we handle these one million extra citizens?"

I'm not a big fan of unfunded mandates. They inevitably result in lowering quality. However - a country's children are its future, so they shouldn't be viewed as a liability, more like buying a bond that matures at a later date.

There is a limited recurring cost to expansion of the "pipeline", but its is limited. There will be adults flowing out the backend at a similar rate to kids flowing in on the front.

[seekeronos]

To clarify my stand on pro-life/pro-choice:

I'm more or less in the general ballpark with Purple Avenger.

Partial Birth abortions are a crime, anything done after the first trimester should be reviewed REALLY CLOSELY to ascertain if carrying the fetus to term poses a significant health risk to the mother, OR if the pregnancy is caused by incestous contact or rape.

Rape? I am not so sure about. Rape is a very ugly thing, but punishing an unborn (and presumably innocent) human child for the actions of the rapist seems to be far more unfair to the child than to the mother. If anyone truly deserves to have his life taken (by a lawful act of the state) it is certainly the rapist's.

"Morning After Pills" leave me a little queasy (to borrow PA's terms), less because of the viability of the zygote/embryo or statsu of its implantation, but more because it vastly facilitates reducing judgment over human life down to a question of popping a pill. I tend to think that it would encourage irresponsible attitudes towards heterosexual sex, but at the same time, in the case of the rape victim, I would have less issues with her popping the pill than I would with her killing the fetus three or four months down the road.

Viewing the Morning After Pill as a birth-control panacaea is possibly as dangerous to the heterosexual community as availability of the "HIV Cocktail" has become to the LGBT (particularly male gays) where condom use is thrown out in favour of a quick bareback turn - the thought being that the "Cocktail" is easily available.

[TheSpartan]

All this and people forget that both teen pregnancy and abortion dropped dramatically from the Reagan/Bush I era to the Clinton era. Education works.

[Taurean Taylor]

I work for a mortuary. So I've seen up close and personal what grief can do to a person especially a mother. People fail to realize even though she was a new mother she lost the only person that was constant in her life. "her baby boy" How could the world expect her just too brush off her shoulders and move on with her life. Who cares what perscriptions she was taking. The bottom line is she lost a child and she wasn't allowed to grieve properly and you can only pile so much on one person. People forget she was a person before she was just a source of entertainment.