At issue was a state statute barring doctors from from withdrawing or withholding “life-sustaining treatment” from a pregnant patient.
Here's our previous discussion of the case, from a couple weeks ago. In the comments there, I said:
Do we know that the doctors are on the other side from the family? Maybe they want the lawsuit attacking the statute so they can get back to practicing medicine as they see fit. I think all they are saying is we must follow this law. Someone asked why the woman is on a ventilator. Maybe it's to set up the attack on what is thought to be a bad statute.ADDED: More here, explaining that the decision was based on interpreting the statute not to requiring treatment of a dead person. The argument that the Texas legislature might have intended to protect the unborn, was rejected. The family's lawyer had argued that pregnant women "die every day," and "When they die, their fetus dies with them. That is the way it’s always been, and the way it should be."
The deadness of the woman was described by the husband in these terribly sad words:
When I bend down to kiss her forehead, her usual scent is gone, replaced instead with what I can only describe as the smell of death. As a paramedic, I am very familiar with this smell, and I now recognize it when I kiss my wife. In addition, Marlise’s hands no longer naturally grip mine for an embrace. Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight.
Posts
132 comments:
Of course this is all of our business right?
Of course this is all of our business right?
I bet the baby thinks it is......
No mention in the article that execution of the judge's order ends the life of an unborn baby. It doesn't matter apparently.
You know what kills me?
Most of the people baying for the death of this baby are the same ones who if it was a dog and puppies in this situation instead of humans, would be donating money to keep the dog alive until the puppies were born.
This resulted in an unborn baby that is significantly abnormal in development due to the massive amount intervention in keeping it's "incubator" on life support. Disgusting. This poor family went through hell because of a state that wanted to impose their religious beliefs on the citizens of the state of Texas. This could've ended when this fetus was 14 weeks in gestational age, now it's probably over 20 weeks. Shame on Texas and this hospital.
Deliberate misinterpretation of the clause for pregnant patients under Advanced Directives. The people who helped write the law have stated it was not meant to be applied to the dead. The dead are corpses, not patients. The family's right to be the surrogate voice for this woman was taken away by government. How is that for small government?
Social conservatives will embrace big government when it comes to imposing their religious beliefs on to the rest of us. I hope it's clearer now that if they had their way they would be forcing women to carry and give birth, even after death.
Inga do you have a source for your claim that the baby is abnormal? All the reporting I've seen has said there is no evidence that the baby is not perfectly healthy.
"Fetus distinctly abnormal"
Inga-- the article I saw said that the abnormalities would have most likely preceded the mother's stroke. So.. not an effect of the life support....
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-fetus-abnormalities-mother-brain-dead/story?id=21639616
There are apparantly, as Inga mentioned, severe defects developing with the fetus as it gestates in a deteriorating, dead body:
a statement late Wednesday that the fetus is “distinctly abnormal.”
The 22-week-old fetus’s lower extremities are deformed and it is impossible to determine its gender, the attorneys for the woman’s husband, Erick Muñoz, said in an emailed statement.
“The fetus suffers from hydrocephalus [water on the brain]. It also appears that there are further abnormalities, including a possible heart problem, that cannot be specifically determined due to the immobile nature of Mrs. Muñoz’s deceased body,” the statement said.
The hospital will not say based on those tests if the fetus is likely viable, or would be alive for a few years at a cost of millions...The Munoz clan is modest working class and would not pay for it.
That brings up the 90 year old who broke his neck. The care for the defective fetus will have costs that exceed is hospital stay, if it was delivered alive and lingered..
Conservatives and RTLrs have already placed value on life in other countries....concluding the costs to Americans outweigh the idea of having millions of 3rd worlders allowed to come in and access US healthcare to SAVE LIVES!!
That might be so Dierdre, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision of the family was usurped by government. Also I doubt the massive amount of drugs this poor dead woman was being pumped full of wasn't conducive to normal healthy development.
So I'm wondering, who will foot this bill? It must be in the millions by now.
So, the baby is abnormal according to the testimony of the husband's lawyer. The hospital responsible for the child's care has not spoken publicly of the baby's condition. Either way, the judge has ordered the execution of the child. Perhaps only because it is unwanted or a burden for the father.
Anyway, it's only one of over one million clumps of cells who are annually executed by the state through lethal injection or dismemberment. This case only recognizes an exceptional condition, but serves to obfuscate the normalization of abortion for money, sex, ego, or convenience.
While the mother is innocent by virtue of her untimely death, the father is derelict in his duties and responsibilities for a human life that he participated in conceiving.
idea of having millions of 3rd worlders
That's a weak argument. It is based on the same principle as Obamacare, which promises instant or immediate gratification as a quick fix, while ignoring durable development, and progressive failures of social and economic distortions.
It's the father's right to abort the fetus of his dead wife if he so chooses, especially in light of the circumstances. There are live people who would choose to abort a severly deformed fetus. Who are we to pass judgment on them? We would not be suffering as the child would, we would not be caring for the baby as the husband would. If parents want to carry a baby with severe deformities and health issues that is their business, I wish them luck. BUT since when can the state force a family to carry a fetus, deformed or no? It was 14 weeks, well nder the 20 week limit.
So instead of one dead person, now we have TWO!!!! WIN-WIN!!!!!
interesting that here the headline says the actor is a judge, but in the preceding post about the Kansas sperm donor, it was a "court" that acted.
Inga, your quote left out this:" ...attorneys for the woman's husband said Wednesday."
I'm sure this was an oversight.
Mtrobsattorney,
Excuse me? I linked you to the article, the attorney said it yes. It was based on medical evidence. The attorney didn't dream it up.
Since the baby is at roughly 22 weeks, won't a Caesarean delivery be done? Or will he/she simply die along with the mother? A baby born in the UK at just 21 weeks made it.
If, as Inga maintains, the woman is now a corpse--what rights does a corpse have that can be violated, by the State or any one else?
The dead woman's nearest relative is her child, is it not?
No the dead woman's nearest relative is her husband.
The baby is 22 weeks and may very well be viable. You don't actually have to kill the child, you could try to put her in a NICU.
A baby born in the UK at just 21 weeks made it.
Amilia Taylor. 10 ounces at birth! It was Florida, though, not UK.
And Mom had to lie to her doctors in order to get them to even try to put the baby in a NICU. If your baby is premature, my suggestion would be to lie, lie, lie about the baby's age. Add 2 weeks. Add 3.
@Inga:No the dead woman's nearest relative is her husband.
Interesting. And the rights of a corpse?
"The right to a decent burial has long been recognized as Common Law, but no universal rule exists as to whom the right of burial is granted. Generally, unless otherwise provided before death by the deceased, the right will go to the surviving spouse; if there is none, it will go to the next of kin. When a controversy arises concerning the right of burial, each case will be considered on its own merits. The burial right per se is a sacred trust for those who have an interest in the remains."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burial+Rights
"In most instances, the courts will honor the wishes of the decedent, even in the face of opposition by the surviving spouse or next of kin. If for some reason a decedent's wishes cannot be carried out, direction should be sought by the court. The court will decide how the body should be disposed of and will most likely do so according to the wishes of the surviving spouse or next of kin, provided those wishes are reasonable and not contrary to public policy."
It's a violation of federal law to discriminate against the handicapped. The ease in which socialists are so willing to kill the handicapped reminds people of the Nazis. That's because Hitler started with the handicapped.
I grant you that we are not requiring that parents murder their handicapped child. So it's not quite as bad as a mass murder ordered by the state. But it's pretty fucking bad. The people who are so willing to kill the handicapped today might not wait to ask your permission tomorrow.
"A civil action for breach of contract as to the care and burial of a corpse may be brought under certain circumstances. An individual who makes an agreement to properly bury a corpse may be subject to a lawsuit if he or she gives the body an improper burial, negligently allows the body to be taken from his or her custody, or allows the body to suffer indignities while in his or her possession."
Pertains to undertakers, but I would hope that hospitals or state governments could not be allowed to hoist indignities upon a corpse either.
And it appears that the rights of the family mean nothing to Right to Lifers who care more about the unborn than the living. What happened to this family was cruel and unusual.
You can give up any child for adoption so I really don't understand the determination to murder.
No one has the right to use his wife as an incubator for an adoptive couple without the family's permission. Are we going to force living women to carry and give birth so that someone else can adopt the child? I don't think the people of this country will allow the government to force pregnant women to give birth.
Are we going to force living women to carry and give birth so that someone else can adopt the child? I don't think the people of this country will allow the government to force pregnant women to give birth.
Well, a lot of people who claim to be in favor of limited government appear to want to allow the government to do exactly that. Funny how that works.
So somefeller, the government has no place in preventing a death? Is that your argument?
Man, you sure am smart.
Whatever else you might say on this matter you cannot say it is God's will that this fetus continues to live. God has made his views on the matter very clear.
God is only relevant if that is your faith. This is strictly a human rights issue, specifically the unalienable right to life. No one has the right to deny life without cause or due process. There is no exception afforded to women and men who choose to reject their responsibility for reason of money, sex, ego, or convenience.
That said, it's interesting to observe the shift from a principled support to preserve the sanctity of the dead mother's body (presumably to harvest the organs) to a demand to euthanize (presumably to harvest the fetal stem cells) what may well emerge a deformed and retarded human child, and with, all of things, arguments of fiscal responsibility. The state already spends over one trillion dollars to aid people and compensate for policies which sponsor progressive cost of living. A few million dollars is insignificant to the economic repercussions of trillion dollar deficits.
Saint Croix - "It's a violation of federal law to discriminate against the handicapped."
==============
Not when it comes to fetuses. Most people want the option to abort the severely defective left in place. Even pro-lifers take this option up when confronted by a Downs Syndrome fetus or a grossly malformed fetus doomed to a few weeks, months, short years of a pained life.
They must, or there would still be a lot of Downs cases around. But they(Downs babies) are disappearing after medicine was able to test for that and many other genetic maladies and malformations.
In an evolutionary sense, propagation of the species works best in limited fertility times if the unviable are expelled by miscarriage (common). Making a new opportunity for healthy viable offspring to be gestated.
Now add for humans - by informing the parents of the costs and burdens of severe defect.
Most people want the option to abort the severely defective left in place. Even pro-lifers take this option up when confronted by a Downs Syndrome fetus or a grossly malformed fetus doomed to a few weeks, months, short years of a pained life. They must, or there would still be a lot of Downs cases around. But they(Downs babies) are disappearing after medicine was able to test for that and many other genetic maladies and malformations.
You must not have noticed, the religious people are the only ones that still have kids with Downs. One of my friends said that when she was growing up, she thought that becoming a Mormon meant you had to have a sibling with Downs syndrome.
Wow!
I'm not sure that everyone had a consistent opinion.
"...government to force pregnant women to give birth."
somefeller: Well, a lot of people who claim to be in favor of limited government appear to want to allow the government to do exactly that. Funny how that works.
Yes, in the same way we want the government to "force" you to not murder.
Inga: ...Right to Lifers who care more about the unborn than the living.
Inga doesn't believe the unborn are alive.
She's like the girl in that facebook meme who says "I won't eat lobsters because they are alive when you kill them"...
*facepalm*
Most people want the option to abort the severely defective left in place.
Justice Ginsburg likes to use the word "anomalies" when she's talking about aborting the handicapped.
“(N)early all women carrying fetuses with the most serious central nervous anomalies chose to abort their pregnancies.”
Like much of the Supreme Court’s social science, this is wrong. In the USA the termination rate for babies with Down’s is about 67%. The termination rate for healthy babies is close to 40%. So that’s a sizable increase, but it’s not as though there’s no pro-life resistance to this agenda.
But they (Downs babies) are disappearing after medicine was able to test for that and many other genetic maladies and malformations.
Girls are disappearing, too, at least in China and India. See this. 100 million girls have disappeared.
All babies are weak and helpless, and unwanted babies disappear all the time. Abortion is done in secret, but our evil hearts will have results in the real world. We allow people to kill the handicapped, many people will kill the handicapped.
You allow people to buy and sell human beings, we'll do that, too. There's already a market for baby parts.
(That links to an appellate brief. What is of particular interest is the journalism that is attached to the brief. There is a transcript of a 20/20 segment, and a Life Dynamics interview, that is mind-blowing).
Handicapped children, by the way, are ignored in this market. Medical researchers want to purchase "healthy specimens."
Impossible conundrum. Life forming within another dying. One past speaking for herself; the other not yet able. So others clamor for them in the maelstrom of Time.
The problem with defining "sub-humans" is that the possibilities are endless.
What if we take the baby’s side? What if we like the baby more than we like Peter Singer? We might very well define “personhood” as an ability to form emotional connections with other human beings. Maybe humanity should not be measured by high intelligence, or even self-awareness, but by an ability to connect with other people in loving relationships. Newborn infants have excellent skills in that regard.
Sociopaths, on the hand, regardless of their high intelligence, are incapable of love or compassion, and their lack of an ability to feel marks them as human outcasts. This is not to say that Professor Singer is a sociopath. On the other hand, it’s certainly a possibility!
We could probably devise a simple test for sociopaths using human babies. If you love a baby, and feel like she’s cute, and you form an emotional connection with her, then you are a normal human being. If you are a sociopath, on the other hand, and you feel nothing for babies, and you have a weird desire to kill them, then perhaps you are actually the sub-human.
Singer has a rather bizarre confidence that our human tribe will give him hugs and kisses, while we feel nothing for the cute little guy with the baby face. I daresay ordinary people are far more inclined to accept a baby into our human family, and define somebody like Singer as a human outcast.
Of course, that would be evil, too. Once we go down the road of defining sub- humans, then we are debating criteria, and soon we are simply eliminating the people we do not like.
Every pregnant woman is an incubator. The question is: Does she have the mind of a machine that says "Defective, defective, terminate, terminate," or a human willing to accept the risk for the life she is carrying?
Egads, says hydrocephalus as he smiles: http://www.adoptuskids.org/_app/child/viewp.aspx?id=50482.
Bandwagon Sioux, would you have terminated Steven Hawkins? After all, such cerebral palsy cannot be tolerated...
Disclaimer: I am hormonal and have little patience for nurses who are relieved at the thought of a death that relieves them of difficult duty and responsibilities and act as solo arbitrators.
I also happen to love "defective, abnormal" people who present profound challenges to our concept of a genetic "normal," which could be argued does not exist.
Those of you conflating Down syndrome with debilitating disabilities and abnormalities demonstrate the complexity of this issue. I am a special educator and am horrified by the high rate of abortion for Down syndrome. Not every family has the emotional, financial, spiritual resources to care for a child with Down syndrome, but there are many who would adopt a child with DS. But when you talk about conditions like Tay Sachs, Edwards syndrome, anencephaly- families are left devastated with no release. In the case of this family, the mother's clearly stated wishes were disregarded to force her corpse to grow a baby who is unlikely to survive. This is cruel.
In the case of this family, the mother's clearly stated wishes were disregarded to force her corpse to grow a baby who is unlikely to survive. This is cruel.
You can read up on hydrocephalus here. I wouldn't assume an attorney has more medical knowledge than the doctors in the hospital. Why not do a surgery to release the water in the baby's brain? Why not put the baby in a NICU? Why this passionate desire to kill a child?
This is none of our damn business.
Also amazed how many conservatives are up in arms about this life, but remarkably apathetic about American soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
This is moral posturing about how the state can bully you and it's tiresome.
This is none of our damn business.
Yes it is. Its about our society allowing murder when a life becomes inconvenient to maintain. Its about a slippery slope that leads to eugenics.
Also amazed how many conservatives are up in arms about this life, but remarkably apathetic about American soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
One has nothing to do with the other. And as a former Marine, I'm very concerned about our troops in AfPak. We are capable of being concerned about both. I suspect you are not, about either.
This is moral posturing about how the state can bully you and it's tiresome.
Projection.
Inga wrote:
This resulted in an unborn baby that is significantly abnormal in development due to the massive amount intervention in keeping it's "incubator" on life support. Disgusting. This poor family went through hell because of a state that wanted to impose their religious beliefs on the citizens of the state of Texas.
Not religious beliefs. Biological beliefs.
ARreasonableMan wrote:
Whatever else you might say on this matter you cannot say it is God's will that this fetus continues to live. God has made his views on the matter very clear.
You could say that about any baby born, who can't provide for himself. Since they are of course a baby.
Inga wrote:
This could've ended when this fetus was 14 weeks in gestational age, now it's probably over 20 weeks. Shame on Texas and this hospital.
No, shame on you, baby killer.
Fen wrote:
Inga doesn't believe the unborn are alive.
But, she, in fact does. Which is why her argument is even weaker sauce.
Birches wrote:
You must not have noticed, the religious people are the only ones that still have kids with Downs. One of my friends said that when she was growing up, she thought that becoming a Mormon meant you had to have a sibling with Downs syndrome.
I know a lot of people now who have kids with autism. Shoulda got the abortion. Though funnily enough,they seem to love their kids.
But, really, they should have got the abortion. Because those kids are worthless.
Here's the wikipedia page for CHris Burke, the guy who played Corky on the show Life Goes On:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Burke_%28actor%29
He has downs syndrome in real life. I guess he should be happy that he doesn't have parents link Inga and countless other liberals who would have aborted his ass.
And incidentally, considering his issues, he's accomplishing far more than they ever could dream of. And is probably richer than many of them to boot.
"This is none of our damn business"
Was slavery any of our business?
Saint Croix wrote:
Girls are disappearing, too, at least in China and India. See this. 100 million girls have disappeared.
Well, it is a fact that girls aren't as valuable as boys. One step up from downs syndrome babies, if you ask me.
(that wasn't serious, but in a way it was. if you don't value women then what's wrong with aborting girl babies?)
Saint croix wrote:
You can read up on hydrocephalus here. I wouldn't assume an attorney has more medical knowledge than the doctors in the hospital. Why not do a surgery to release the water in the baby's brain? Why not put the baby in a NICU? Why this passionate desire to kill a child?
Seriously. It's as if when a baby is released into the world as a preemie, hospitals do absolutely nothing to try to keep them alive.
Joe wrote:
"Also amazed how many conservatives are up in arms about this life, but remarkably apathetic about American soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
This is moral posturing about how the state can bully you and it's tiresome.
Maybe your comparison of soldiers in Afghanistan to babies being killed by the millions is what is moral posturing. Its certainly a flawed comparison.
What does the one have to do with the other? First off, what are conservatives doing that show a lack of empathy for the troops in Afghanistan?
Wasn't, by the way, Afghanistan the REAL war on terror, that the dems ostensibly supported, and Obama escalated in? So turn the question on democrats and ask, why, if they really didn't believe in the war, that they sent some peoples sons and daughters in to fight for a mistake?
But I would argue this. A soldier is like a fireman. His job is war. And sometimes, like firemen, he is killed in the line of duty. Would you ever make the argument that you do about soldiers about firemen?
Maybe fighting fires is simply not worth the cost of one dead fireman. Maybe putting firemen in the position where they have to brave their lives to rescue other people is a sign that we don't value life.
Hospital says baby is not viable.
Not only is this unborn baby distinctly deformed it has been deemed not viable outside the womb.
And Joe, you say its none of our business. then why did the Supreme Court say that abortions shouldn't be allowed after the 2nd trimester? Is THAT our business? Or is the supreme court engaged in moral posturing there too?
Maybe having an objection to a baby being born and then smothered and thrown in a garbage can is similarly none of our business and moral posturing.
If you can answer the question as to why the latter IS our business, you can similarly answer why pro lifers think the former is.
Inga wrote;
Hospital says baby is not viable.
Not only is this unborn baby distinctly deformed it has been deemed not viable outside the womb.
What if the baby were deemed viable? You weren't arguing viability, you were arguing rights.
Jr, you most certainly do prattle on and on and on.
Whatever, baby killer advocate.
Munoz’s affidavit did not mention the fetus.
No surprise, since neither the father, his family or any of the folks who support his side of the issue (including here) has expressed one iota of sentiment or empathy for the baby inside the mother.
inga, when you watched the movie My Left Foot were you uplifted by the triumph over adversity or disgusted that that freaks parents ever allowed him to live in the first place?
Jr, you most certainly do prattle on and on and on.
Prattling or not, jr is absolutely right about you. It is quite clear you couldn't care less about the unborn. Period.
Heyboom, parents who choose to abort a hopelessly deformed baby or one with health conditions not conducive to life are doing so with the utmost empathy. Do you think these children do not suffer, feel pain for the rest of their short lives? Do you not think that this child may not even have the capacity to realize it is alive? To accuse parents in such situations of being selfish is incredibly ignorant and cruel.
Also the rights of this family to the disposition of their loved one was usurped by the state and the hospital. Is this what you want set as a precedent for future cases? You seriously want the government to be given that kind of power? Limited government gets thrown out the window when other ideology trumps. So women should be forced to give birth by the state, even after death.
It's the father's right to abort the fetus of his dead wife if he so chooses, especially in light of the circumstances. There are live people who would choose to abort a severly deformed fetus. Who are we to pass judgment on them? We would not be suffering as the child would, we would not be caring for the baby as the husband would. If parents want to carry a baby with severe deformities and health issues that is their business, I wish them luck. BUT since when can the state force a family to carry a fetus, deformed or no? It was 14 weeks, well under the 20 week limit.
1/24/14, 7:42 PM
--------------------------------
Your claims of me not mentioning the suffering of the child is unfounded.
Don't we have two different arguments going on here? One is whether the state back in November had the right to refuse the family's request to withdraw life support from Mrs. Munoz. The other is whether the baby, now about 22 weeks old, should be either allowed to die with the mother or be aborted or delivered and attempts made to save her/his life. This second question is the one staring us in the face right now.
And according to the link Inga provided at 12:04 pm about the hospital agreeing with the Munoz family said this:
"About two hours before today’s hearing, attorneys representing Erick Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital filed a joint document in which they agree that 'at the time of this hearing, the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.' That "at the time of this hearing," says to me they're referring to the level of gestation, not condition.
Lydia:
That is what the hospital agreed. The baby is unlikely to survive outside of her mother's womb.
The Fort Worth hospital again states that its refusal to withdraw support is based on the state law that prohibits the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment for a pregnant woman.
The viability standard is first and foremost designed to rationalize and thereby justify abortion of unwanted human lives. It is an arbitrary standard promoted by people who want a population control protocol, but without the obvious human rights violations committed by governments such as the Chinese left-wing regime. They think there is a difference between a voluntary and involuntary genocide, but they are wrong.
Inga wrote:
Heyboom, parents who choose to abort a hopelessly deformed baby or one with health conditions not conducive to life are doing so with the utmost empathy.
But you would argue that the father could abort the kid even absent such conditions. So why bring up the conditions as if its a qualifier.
"About two hours before today’s hearing, attorneys representing Erick Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital filed a joint document in which they agree that 'at the time of this hearing, the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.' That "at the time of this hearing," says to me they're referring to the level of gestation, not condition.
Right,So that's kind of a dodge. its not viable as of this moment if you removed it from its womb, but that doesn't necessarily mean that if you kept it there until say the 22nd week of the pregnancy that it would be.
Inga wrote:
BUT since when can the state force a family to carry a fetus, deformed or no? It was 14 weeks, well under the 20 week limit
You had said previously that you would limit abortions to the first trimester, even. Which is less than the time alloted by the Supreme Court.
The first trimester ends at how many weeks? 12 weeks. Meaning, based on your own opinion of abortion this would be one of the restricted abortions that, in theory, you would support.
But you seem to question the very premise of the state being able to restrict an abortion, even though you have already stated that the state should be able to as early as the first trimester!
Lydia, the unborn baby is 22 weeks gestation. How long should this dead woman incubate this seriously ill malformed child?
Why are we advocating using a human in such a way to produce another human who will face a probably short lifetime of suffering? It is the parents perogative as to whether they desire to carry to term in such circumstances, which are a dead mother and a likely deformed seriously ill baby, considering the mother was without oxygen for an hour.
We don't know what the hospital and family meant when they said the baby was not viable. It may be based on more than gestational age.
Abortions limited to the first trimester, or even up to 20 weeks, with EXCEPTIONS for the health (or death) of the mother or the fetus. Right to Lifers need to be careful with this over the top craziness. There could be a backlash from people on the fence who may have the foresight to realize but for the grace of God, they could be in the position of this family and want a choice. These people may withdraw support for the Right to Life movement in the face of the fact that extremists in this movement and the state government would force them to carry and give birth.
Your claims of me not mentioning the suffering of the child is unfounded.
Referencing the suffering of the child in order to justify terminating it is not really empathy, but more like political convenience.
We don't know what the hospital and family meant when they said the baby was not viable. It may be based on more than gestational age.
Except that they included the qualifier "at the time of this hearing", right?
She is a dead woman. Her body is literally a clump of cells. There is no consciousness. There is no woman. Her body has one last task to carry out and that is to birth her child.
After that, you can dismember and redistribute its parts. Before that, you cannot harvest the fetal stem cells of the child. Not until its evolution concludes with its natural death. You may argue for fiscal responsibility, but you must be consistent in your arguments. The unborn child cannot be reasonably held accountable for its own survival.
So Right to Lifers have jumped the shark. It is now acceptable to use dead bodies in any way they see fit, to be enforced by the government. You've lost your advantage here. The misuse of this dead woman, sanctioned by the state and the strident Right to Lifers at all costs, have gone too far. The reform of Roe v. Wade to reflect modern technology and advances in the viability of a 20 week fetus, is lost for years to come now. Hope you extremists are happy. You set back your own movement.
You could've worked to limit abortions to 20 weeks nation wide, but instead clamor for a dead woman to be forced to carry a very ill child with little hope of survival. Your arguments for the right to life have now been diminished, because you've come across as nuts.
Inga:
You're conflating rape (or rape-rape) and voluntary conception. The woman's body is not being used in any way seen fit. She conceived a child before her death and was pregnant at her parting. Her body is being sustained in order to bring forth that new life and nothing more. It is being subsidized by taxpayers because the life is wholly innocent and incapable of financing its own survival.
The evolution of human life from conception to death is neither controversial nor subject to debate. The premature termination of human evolution through human intervention is classified as "murder". Elective abortion is the murder. Normalized abortion is state-sponsored execution through lethal injection or dismemberment.
There are different reasons why people support or tolerate abortion. Is it to reduce the problem set (i.e. population control)? Is it to preserve the right to money, sex, ego, and convenience? Is it to ensure that women remain available for sex and taxation? Is it simply to argue for argument's sake? Why is it important to you?
n.n
Sorry but you no longer make any sense.
I think that it would have been best had the hospital not put Mrs. Munoz on life support once they had determined brain-death back in November. But now we're at the point where the child she's carrying is 22 weeks old, and a judge has determined life support must be turned off. If that ruling stands, what to do? Let the baby die with the mother? But would that be deemed unacceptable because it would cause suffering to the baby? And, if so, then there's the question of whether to perform an abortion or deliver the child and try to help him/her survive. If that’s the choice we’ve now got, I go with the latter.
I know a lot of people now who have kids with autism. Shoulda got the abortion. Though funnily enough,they seem to love their kids.
Can't test yet prenatally for autism. Interesting how when one developmental problem can be aborted away (Downs) another one rises up to take its place that cannot be detected until the child is almost two (autism).
I agree with Lydia.
And that hospital must have some crappy lawyers for this thing to go so sideways. . .
She was put on life support because the determination of brain death hadn't been made yet. Because of this hospital being cowardly and trying to avoid getting in trouble with the state, they refused to allow the family their wishes of removing life support. The hospital put this family through hell because their lawyers wanted a court order to turn off life support because they were afraid of the state of Texas. That is what happens when a state feels they can play God. Not exactly consistent with he principal of limited government, is it?
Inga wrote:
So Right to Lifers have jumped the shark. It is now acceptable to use dead bodies in any way they see fit, to be enforced by the government.
Was the woman going for an abortion prior to dying? So then, her choice was to have the baby.
And in any way you see fit? Ok, lets take a case where the mother is in the same state as this woman, and the dad is either out of the picture or dead. What should the default position of a hospital be? To try to keep the baby alive, or to abort it? Shouldn't the default position of a hospital be to TRY to save the kid?
First do no harm. I realize the hippocratic oath is going out of style, but give me a break. And you're a nurse?
Inga wrote:
She was put on life support because the determination of brain death hadn't been made yet. Because of this hospital being cowardly and trying to avoid getting in trouble with the state, they refused to allow the family their wishes of removing life support.
It's not cut and dried. She is pregnant with a growing fetus. Cutting off life support kills the fetus. If it has a chance to continue to develop, why would the default be to kill the fetus?
Inga: So Right to Lifers have jumped the shark.
You're the one arguing that saving the life of a child = abuse of its mother's corpse.
Inga:
My question is why do you so adamantly support, not merely tolerate, abortion of a wholly innocent human life? I listed several reasons why abortion is in demand by the state, by institutions, and by individuals. What is your reason to deny a human life? Is it money, sex, ego, or convenience?
You have argued from several perspectives. One, the father's convenience. Two, the burden of an unwanted child. Three, the consequences of pursuing a presumed unpopular position. You have defended your position with articles of faith, hidden behind ulterior motives, and veiled threats to opponents.
Why not acknowledge that in the wake of a departed human life, she leaves an emergent human life, which can be preserved and made whole with modern technology, and a slight fraction of the multi-trillion dollars redistributed for other welfare causes?
Inga wrote:
That is what happens when a state feels they can play God. Not exactly consistent with he principal of limited government, is it?
Would you make that limited govt argument when it came to gay marriage? Or when it came to slavery?
Jr. You are an idiot. At least n.n. had some valid arguments until recently, you simply sound ignorant.
"why would the default be to kill the fetus?"
Oh I know! I know!
Because people like Inga need sex so bad, they are willing to kill for it. Therefore, any precendent that establishes the fetus as a human deserving of rights must be squashed.
A woman chooses to have a baby. But is in a coma. Can her husband choose to make her have an abortion?
Or to clarify, a woman chose to have a baby. After choosing to carry on with the pregnancy and prior to her having it, she is struck by a car and is now in an irreversible coma. can the father choose to abort her child?
n. n.
I did not argue from the perspective of the parents' convienience. It is much more than being "inconvenienced" for the father, he has another child to support, no wife and a severly ill child with deformities. If you can't empathize with him in his situation, you reveal that you are merely an ideologue who has gone way too far.
It is not money, not sex, not ego or convienience. It is the right of the mother to have control over her own body until her baby is viable outside of her body. It is a private matter that you, or the state do not have any business interfering with. Whatever her reasons, it is none of our business. To force women to give birth to a child hey do not want nder the gestational age of viability is not the role of government.
Fen wrote:
Because people like Inga need sex so bad, they are willing to kill for it. Therefore, any precendent that establishes the fetus as a human deserving of rights must be squashed.
But in previous discussion Inga already established that she believes that. And not only does she believe that, but she believes that abortions should be restricted not by the second trimester, but by the first trimester.
So she's more of a pro lifer than most pro choice people
And yet, she still is carrying on as if the state has no right to tell a woman whether she can have a baby.
She thinks the state should have more of a right to tell a woman when she can have a baby than the supreme court does.
Yet, republicans are anti choice.
And why does she think that? Because she, like Althouse, does in fact think that abortion is murder.
So, does a state have a right or duty even to protect individuals from MURDER? That's not an argument for limited govt at all. That's a core function of govt, preserving and protecting fundamental rights.
Jr. What do you not understand about the word "EXCEPTIONS"? I clearly stated that there should be exceptions for the health of the mother and the health of the child. Now you are being repetitive and tiresome.
Inga wrote:
It is not money, not sex, not ego or convienience. It is the right of the mother to have control over her own body until her baby is viable outside of her body. It is a private matter that you, or the state do not have any business interfering with.
But she never went for an abortion. Therefore, I'd assume it was her choice to have the baby live. It certainly was prior to her death. Maybe if she was en route to the clinic with an appointment for an abortion you could argue she wanted to have an abortion, but her choice SEEMS to have been the opposite.
So then, wouldnt aborting that child be against her choice to not abort the child?
Inga wrote:
Jr. What do you not understand about the word "EXCEPTIONS"? I clearly stated that there should be exceptions for the health of the mother and the health of the child. Now you are being repetitive and tiresome.
The mothers all but dead. So there is no abortion for the health of the mother consideration here. It's not the child that is causing her to be on the verge of death.
However, her choice was to have the child.
Inga - conservatives engage in real-life corpse camping. If you don't know what that is, look at this link:
Corpse Camping
God lord, Jr. You see nothing wrong or unethical with using a corpse in this way, especially when it is against the wishes of the family, who is the surrogate voice for the dead woman? The people who wrote the Advanced Directive clause for pregnant patients did. The judge did. So now I need to spell it out to you there needs to be an exception for corpses too?
Nuts. I'm done responding to you.
INga wrote:
God lord, Jr. You see nothing wrong or unethical with using a corpse in this way, especially when it is against the wishes of the family, who is the surrogate voice for the dead woman?
If there were no fetus, it wouldnt even be an issue. But because there is, there is an issue.
as for her, she's brain dead. She's not going to feel anything one way or the other. But keeping her alive for a few weeks longer, might be enough time to allow doctors to remove the baby when i's potentially viable. and then see what happens.
And furhter, weigh that against the fact that her intent was not to have an abortion but to keep the baby.
So, if you respect the womans choice, infer that she'd probably want to not terminate the pregnancy if there was a chance that she could have it be born.
Besides, arent the left telling us that the baby doesn't actually feel anything? How then would it be cruel to give it a few more weeks to develop before trying to remove it? If the doctors can do that.
The mothers all but dead. So there is no abortion for the health of the mother consideration here.
Right. For Inga, its for the health of the child. Thats why she wants it dead.
Also, the child is desecrating her mother's corpse. Another reason why it needs to die.
[facepalm]
Inga wrote:
The people who wrote the Advanced Directive clause for pregnant patients did. The judge did. So now I need to spell it out to you there needs to be an exception for corpses too?
Nuts. I'm done responding to you.
What exception are you talking about? Suppose it were reveresed. What if the woman wanted an abortion prior to going into a coma and the husband said he wanted to keep her alive to potentially save the kid?
Would you support the mothers choice to terminate or the fathers choice to keep the mother alive to have the kid? I thought fathers didn't have such rights?
If Inga has another meltdown, consider:
1) Inga thinks the child is just a parasite
2) Inga wants to charge the child with desecration of a corpse
3) Loop back to #1 above
... must really suck to be Inga.
The judge pointed out that if Munoz was conscious she could legally choose to abort the baby, given that the baby has not yet reached the legal stage of viability, usually defined as 24 weeks. “As I understand the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that if this fetus were not viable [and] Ms. Muñoz were alive…she could abort the child,
Ok, but she didn't go to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks, so even if she could,her intent seems to be that she wouldnt'. That to me suggests her choice was not termination of the prengnancy but to carry it to term.
So, if I'm going to honor a womans right to choose, there's your choice.
And right now she's at around the 20 week mark. How much longer till the baby could be removed from the womb and put on a machine? A few more weeks?
What is the problem waiting a few more weeks and seeing if the baby can be removed and live on it's own?
Inga wrote:
"The people who helped write the law have stated it was not meant to be applied to the dead. The dead are corpses, not patients. The family's right to be the surrogate voice for this woman was taken away by government. How is that for small government?"
Only,she isn't dead yet is she? Don't they have to remove her from life support to be dead? And her fetus is living inside of her at the same time. If she were truly dead woudl the fetus have been able to survive this long inside of her womb?
Yeah, that's what you Right to Lifers need, more people like Fen. His voice will truly add to your message. I'll leave you to him, he's all yours.
The family's lawyer had argued that pregnant women "die every day," and "When they die, their fetus dies with them. That is the way it’s always been, and the way it should be."
REALLY? that's the argument? So, no effort should be made to save a perfectly viable child if the mother should die while, say, giving birth?
Inga,
Whatever baby killer advocate.
If it is between Fen and you, we pick Fen. He seems to be a well-balanced, consistent individual who is against killing babies.
You? Not so much.
Is your last name Ratchett? You claim to have been a nurse...
"yeah, that's what you Right to Lifers need, more people like Fen. His voice will truly add to your message. I'll leave you to him, he's all yours."
At least he's standing for a baby's potential chance at living. You might learn something from that.
"When they die, their fetus dies with them. That is the way it’s always been, and the way it should be."
And this is the liberal, PROGRESSIVE position. A throwback to medicine from earlier in the century. Does he have a problem with doctors washig their hands so as not to spread disease?
"We doctors do not wash our hands! If patients die in hospitals that is the way it has alwasy been."
And Inga, those advocating for small govt are saying govt doesn't need to be the ones running Panda Cams. But if it's a question of the life or death of millions, Id think that it would be part of govts core functions to protect such life.
Bloomberg wants to ban big sodas to save lives. Abortion is a procedure that necessarily leads to death. How many millions since Roe v Wade alone?
Not to say that Bloomber was right on the big soda, but if you would consider something as innocuous as big soda as within the purview of govt, why would protecting those who are being killed wantonly not be?
Eugenics is a deep-seated value within the progressive movement.
Eugenics.
Ah, the blessings that word invokes: Auschwitz, Birkenau, Buchenwald....
That Herr Hitler made a special point to thank the American progressives for their leadership in that area of science was very thoughtful of him.
Heb' die Fackel hoch, Inga.
Inga wrote:
You could've worked to limit abortions to 20 weeks nation wide, but instead clamor for a dead woman to be forced to carry a very ill child with little hope of survival. Your arguments for the right to life have now been diminished, because you've come across as nuts.
Funny becuase you previously argued a right to life earlier than 20 weeks. (first trimester is about 12 weeks).And funny, because despite the mother being dead the child is still living.
So, why then are you clamoring for the child to be killed? You ghoul!
Inga:
I do empathize with the father. However, I recognize that the loss of his wife has left him mentally incapacitated and unfit to offer rational judgment. But, in any case, neither the father nor mother have a right to terminate a human life. The mother died when brain ceased to function and her consciousness departed. The child is alive with brain activity and an emergent consciousness. The child has an unalienable right to life, irrespective of the father's wishes.
The child is not "severly ill child with deformities". This is a presumption put forth by the father's lawyer. Unfortunately, the lawyer does not consider the mental instability of his client, and neither does the judge, and both are promoting a meme that advocates for the preemptive termination (i.e. abortion) of an at present viable, wholly innocent human life.
Anyway, I skew my argument to favor life, while you skew your argument to favor death. Why? Is there a personal reason to support the normalization of abortion? You do realize that with rare exception, women do have the choice of becoming pregnant and bringing a new human life into this world, right? That is the choice. That is a woman's only choice in a civilized society.
Exactly. The brain has ceased to function; her consciousness has departed; the women is dead; however, the body, with technological intervention, sustains the life of her child. We should rule in favor of the child. Once the child is born, the body will appropriately buried, and her child will mourn her death and celebrate her life.
The husband's words clearly identify that he cannot offer rational testimony. He has been profoundly injured by the loss of his wife. He is incapable of considering the consequences of his demand, specifically that it will terminate his child's life. His emotional trauma precludes a sound state of mind.
Abortion, huh yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
'Cause it means destruction of [wholly] innocent lives.
This is an issue unlike any other which affects the individual, society, and humanity. Its resolution cannot be taken lightly. The consequences of devaluing human life are not constrained and they are progressive. It should certainly not be decided by emotionally unstable individuals or by people with a vested interest in reducing the problem set.
Why didn't the doctors submit an affidavit? All we have is a hearsay affidavit from attorneys who in likelihood know nothing about medical matters. (Note: one should always approach an affidavit submitted by an attorney with a great deal of caution.)
Nonetheless, this hearsay affidavit is enough for Inga. She believes with all her heart that it is an established fact that this unborn fetus is "hopelessly deformed." And she seems obsessed with her belief that this innocent creature should meet death.
But it is not clear why she believes this. On the one hand, she says she supports terminating this life because of the family's wish. On the other hand, she expresses great concern over the cost of carrying for a "hopelessly deformed" infant.
Would Inga support a reasonable solution to this case--removal of the baby by cesarean section? I doubt it, but maybe she would.
Here's an interesting story about a man who not only survived being born with hydroencephalus but even managed to write a book about the experience after successful surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Alexie
N.n wrote:
Exactly. The brain has ceased to function; her consciousness has departed; the women is dead; however, the body, with technological intervention, sustains the life of her child. We should rule in favor of the child. Once the child is born, the body will appropriately buried, and her child will mourn her death and celebrate her life.
I don't even think you'd have to wait till the baby was born. Just until the baby was more viable ns could be removed. Typically around 24 weeks.its 22 weeks now, why not wait a few more weeks to see if the baby can be saved?
This was, after all, a baby at the mother planned on having. Honor her wishes, and recorgnize that even in deah she might still produce a miracle in sustaining her kid long enough yet it can be born.
jr565:
Of course. In this instance, there is no possibility of a natural birth.
Your second point is also well taken. For all intents and purposes, the mother intended to for the child to be born. There is no evidence that she would have aborted her. That was not her choice.
So, not only does society have an interest to preserve the value of human life, but the mother's wishes are not in conflict.
The father, however, is predictably upset, and is clearly not in possession of sound mind and judgment. His wishes cannot be reasonably entertained to determine the fate of his child.
Post a Comment