Quote from Husband of pregnant woman wants her off life support[/quote »
Complicating an already difficult situation is that Munoz is also pregnant, about 18 weeks along, WFAA reported. Texas state law prohibits withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient, regardless of her wishes.
Here's a successful version of events where a different mother was kept alive with explicit wishes to save the baby:
Quote from Baby born to brain dead mother[/quote »
31-year-old Hungarian mother suffered a stroke when 15 weeks pregnant
Tests revealed she was brain dead but the foetus was still healthy
Rather than switch the life support machine off, doctors left it on until the 27th week of pregnancy, when the mother's physical health declined
Baby born by Caesarean and mother's life support turned off 2 days later
Despite weighing only around 3lb, baby is now doing well, doctors say
There's not even a fight between the grandparents and the father, apparently they both want her to pass on. So no Terry Shiavo mess, either. I find the second case, while honorable, but when you read the article you see the lengths they had to go to deal with the situation and that the mother was taken off life support 2 days later.
Basically, anti-abortion law has turned women into an axolotl tank before being left to die.
As a conservative, I'm very anti-abortion as a form of birth control except for dour cases. But, this is something that is a bit beyond the pale and one of the major reasons why I believe in the right to privacy under Wade.
A long time ago as a younger man I over heard a group of women discuss when they would terminate a pregnancy over health relations, and there was a time indicator when they would. If it was very early, they would terminate. Beyond that they would carry to term. That has shaped my thinking in the ability for people to decide whether to sacrifice another life.
Arguably, I could see the grandparents having a say in this case considering it is their daughter. However, they're not fighting here and the pregnancy was 18 weeks along. This is the hospital going with Texas' law, which I find to be government over reach. There's not even a doctor here arguing that the child would take a few months to gestate healthily and be born without any problems.
In the case of the lower case, the baby born successfully was 3 lbs, and if you read that article you'll see they had to fight several problems with the woman such as infection and bed sores.
The question also comes down to who pays for this? What if the child is severely mentally retarded? Is a father, who doesn't earn a whole lot on one pay with another child, going to care for this child on social security or rely on the grandparents?
The quality of life without the mother is another factor for the husband, who is also young as well as the weight that will be impacted for resources on the other child. The US isn't known for it's excessively generous welfare benefits, either. Which has been a sticking point with me as a conservative, that a state that requires certain actions taken by individuals must also be willing to share in those burdens. When you send a woman to war, expect to pay for PTSD treatment. When you force a man to care for a potentially sick child and medical costs for keeping the axolotl tank running, against the tank's wishes to be made into a tank, expect to cough up money when his income has been cut in life. I find that sort of dichotomy sickening, while I loath the welfare state, if something is asked of me then I expect to ask of others in return.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This is the hospital going with Texas' law, which I find to be government over reach.
Why?
According to the article:
Texas state law prohibits withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient, regardless of her wishes.
You might not agree with this law, but that sounds like something completely within the rights of the government to mandate.
Personally I side with the law. However, an option to terminate the pregnancy and thereby allow the woman to be taken off life-support should not be denied to the family.
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in keeping a brain-dead woman alive to deliver a baby?
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in passing a law mandating that hospitals administer life-sustaining treatment to pregnant women? Should I really have to explain this?
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in keeping a brain-dead woman alive to deliver a baby?
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in passing a law mandating that hospitals administer life-sustaining treatment to pregnant women? Should I really have to explain this?
Yes you should, considering that Texas automatically invalidates an advanced directive if a woman is pregnant. Why not invalidate an advance directive for non-pregnant people who are also brain-dead?
This isn't law in the majority of other states. Which is why I ask.
Yes you should, considering that Texas automatically invalidates an advanced directive if a woman is pregnant. Why not invalidate an advance directive for non-pregnant people who are also brain-dead?
Obviously because the non-pregnant woman is not pregnant.
Yes you should, considering that Texas automatically invalidates an advanced directive if a woman is pregnant. Why not invalidate an advance directive for non-pregnant people who are also brain-dead?
Obviously because the non-pregnant woman is not pregnant.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
It's not a circular argument. You asked what the difference between a pregnant woman and a not pregnant woman is. The answer is the woman is pregnant. It's pretty self-evident.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
Are we not clear on what pregnancy means? It's not merely the woman's life, but the unborn child's life as well, that is an issue at stake here.
I completely agree with a provision that prevents the hospital from removing a person off life support if that person is pregnant despite that person having an advanced directive.
That being said, there should also be a provision to allow the termination of that pregnancy so that the advanced directive can then apply. If the state of Texas denies this, then I believe they are in error.
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
It's not a circular argument. You asked what the difference between a pregnant woman and a not pregnant woman is. The answer is the woman is pregnant. It's pretty self-evident.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
Are we not clear on what pregnancy means? It's not merely the woman's life, but the unborn child's life as well, that is an issue at stake here.
I completely agree with a provision that prevents the hospital from removing a person off life support if that person is pregnant despite that person having an advanced directive.
That being said, there should also be a provision to allow the termination of that pregnancy so that the advanced directive can then apply. If the state of Texas denies this, then I believe they are in error.
If the fetus's life supersedes the wishes of the mother (even as specified in a legal document on end-of-life decisions), then abortion needs to be outlawed in Texas.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
You're using the term of art, correct? The Roe court recognized a compelling state interest in the protection of "potential life" that increases the further along a pregnancy is. At the point of fetal viability, the state can ban or restrict abortions as it sees fit.
Likewise, the life of the mother is a compelling state interest at every point.
Further, this law clearly supercedes the advance directive law in texas, and the compelling state interest doesn't come into question unless we're taking this to a higher court.
EDIT: Reading the advance directive law - if the patient is brain dead, the physician and another adult (listed in the law) make the decision. This law is in no way an end-all, must-comply affair. There are several provisions written into the law itself that allow the doctor, the patient, or someone with medical PoA to cancel or ignore an advance directive.
EDIT EDIT: Even if a directive is properly given, a doctor may completely ignore it regardless and his decision is reviewed by a medical ethics committee. The patient is treated in the meantime. Furthermore, there is no liability of any kind to anyone for violating an advance directive. Why was this brought up as if it were something serious?
Final Edit:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.
Long story short, if we're going federal on this, the state has a compelling interest in the fetus's life, and the laws reasonably allow for exactly what is happening, considering the 18 weeks shes into the pregnancy. Hell, abortions are completely BANNED after 20 weeks in Texas.
Forcing someone to stay alive against their will is abhorrent. This does not change because someone else has an interest in keeping them alive. I don't understand why it would.
This is the hospital going with Texas' law, which I find to be government over reach.
Why?
According to the article:
Texas state law prohibits withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient, regardless of her wishes.
You might not agree with this law, but that sounds like something completely within the rights of the government to mandate.
Personally I side with the law. However, an option to terminate the pregnancy and thereby allow the woman to be taken off life-support should not be denied to the family.
Well, on the CNN video segment there was an interview with one of the original lawyers who helped to draft the law and said specifically this wasn't it's original intent. She was 18 weeks pregnant, she was within the time period to die. The original drafter said that if she could not be sustained off life support, then she was beyond the limits of the law, anyway.
As a conservative, I have to ask "Whose going to pay for this?" This medical treatment the woman is receiving plus being a premie baby is going to be a huge cost. Is someone on an EMT's salary really going to pay for all that?
This is where the state needs to say that it will bear the burden of the cost on the child's behalf, if the state believes it has a moral obligation, then it presumes a financial cost beyond the norm. Under normal operating conditions, this baby would be dead long ago. Yet, this is also beyond the normal someone shagged someone, oops I'm pregnant, swoop into the clinic and get out the machine. This is way, well beyond that.
The major problem I have with this is also that it's the state saying no, without any charity support or someone coming to the father and advocating on behalf of the child and offering him help with services. That's where my major problem is with this part of conservative philosophy. Sorry bro, bad thing happens, you clean up the mess. Individualism and all that. K thx, bye.
This is what I have said about a community coming to the door and saying, "we want the child to live" and asking how they can help to make the man's life better now and once his child is born and wife has passed. This is what separates a gross miscalculation in cultivating a sense of morality around the issue backed up with reinforcing a good outcome. This is a good neighbor policy in making a law actually work.
Laws do not define the culture, it is the culture that defines the law. However, you can cultivate a change in culture over time to better meter out justice. This is an attempt to legislate morality without building up a point. To be more direct, there was a study where women who were raped would abort more frequently. If women, talked to before the rape or after, about not having an abortion were more likely to carry the child and keep or place up for adoption and subsequently lowered abortion rates in that percentile.
This is what separates a woman under an abortion ban "going to the local coat hanger operator" and someone who takes responsibility for a bad outcome and brings about a good outcome for all parties.
I am uncomfortable with someone being alone in a situation without a way out and heavy downsides. We don't need everyone to be Job in this world, so less Job perhaps more Ruth.
However, an option to terminate the pregnancy and thereby allow the woman to be taken off life-support should not be denied to the family.
And the difference is... what, exactly? Either way the pregnancy is ended. Your case has the added misogyny of people other than the woman herself deciding what happens to her body. Her wishes are already clear.
The question isn't misogynistic for his stance, rather it is a question of the supremacy of which individual; the mother or the child. One could argue that your stance is anti-baby or fetist, if such a word even exists. Which goes back to show the strangeness with the technology we have that we must look at our bio ethics and come up with policy and ways to deal with these strange phenomenon. I don't think Highroller is anti-woman at all, and he has a sensible position. He's a Christian, and he's entitled to that position especially since the situation is that you have to decide to whom you discriminate against; the developing fetus/child or the mother. You could just as easily find that belief in a humanist tradition and he probably has been influenced by that anyway. And from what I can recall from a long time ago, I believe that he is a father himself. Which lends him towards a different perspective than your own, someone who has never mentioned having children. This doesn't make you inferior to argue a point about a father, it just makes his experience carry more weight when you begin to ascribe certain words to him and somethings that he feels in the value of a child being born irregardless and then the mother's wishes being matched as a sort of Solomanic judgement.
In short, it's baby and state interest versus the mother and the father. We're in a point that's sort of murky and beyond the precedence.
Forcing someone to stay alive against their will is abhorrent. This does not change because someone else has an interest in keeping them alive. I don't understand why it would.
Brain dead is dead. The "right to die" question is irrelevant, because she's already dead. At worst, this is like breaking somebody's funerary arrangements - it's disregarding their wishes for their vacated meatsuit, but it's not hurting them or anyone else. And breaking somebody's funerary arrangements very seldom has the potential to save another's life. The typical pro-choice arguments of individual self-determination are really shaky here too. The abortion question is a conflict of two overriding concerns: life versus autonomy. When one of those concerns disappears due to the death of the party claiming it, the conflict disappears as well. If a fetus dies, its life is no longer a concern, so there's no controversy over the mother getting rid of it. If a mother dies, her autonomy is no longer a concern, so why should there be a controversy over the fetus using her body?
I think what people are reacting to here, as much as anything else, is just the creepiness of the thought of basically using a corpse as an incubator. And yeah, it's really freaking creepy. But it's not the creepiest procedure in modern medical science. And it's to save a life. I think that's worth a few goosebumps. If you don't like it, invent a working artificial womb and we can use that instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Brain dead is dead. The "right to die" question is irrelevant, because she's already dead. At worst, this is like breaking somebody's funerary arrangements - it's disregarding their wishes for their vacated meatsuit, but it's not hurting them or anyone else.
This is where I expose my ignorance. I didn't consider that. I concede that this is no longer a question of bodily rights or pregnancy related double standards.
At what cost and what risk to the developing child? If the other article was born at 3 lbs., is the risk worth the benefit?
Then we also have to consider the other costs in developing techniques to keep the child in the "axolotl tank" so as not to be premature.
And that's where the messaging problem comes from is the capacity for actual benefits just also beyond the baby for keeping the woman's body "running" as an "axotolt tank" until a certain point or longer to keep the child healthy.
So what you're arguing is that the child has a "life estate" until being viable as it asserts control over the rights of the "axlotl tank," and then the mother can be left to die.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Its a Dune reference to Tleilaxu birthing tanks that were biological 'wombs' that replaced their female gender.
More particularly - the Tleilaxu society forcibly turned all their women into these. They were then used as factories for all sorts of Bio-products. It's a bit metaphorical for an extreme form of masculine superiority/domination.
I think what people are reacting to here, as much as anything else, is just the creepiness of the thought of basically using a corpse as an incubator. And yeah, it's really freaking creepy.
Desecration of a corpse is also a felony in Texas.
Desecration of a corpse is also a felony in Texas.
Define "desecration". If you remove a corpse's liver just for ****s and giggles, it's desecration, but in other circumstances, it's a life-saving medical procedure.
Define "desecration". If you remove a corpse's liver just for ****s and giggles, it's desecration, but in other circumstances, it's a life-saving medical procedure.
However, we do have to have the dead person's permission to harvest their organs. That rule seems to have gone away because this woman was pregnant, which is a double standard.
I'm fine with harvesting dead people's organs, since there is no one left to harm, but society seems to frown on it.
This is the thing I feel that many people fail to understand.
Honestly, I'm not sure why this is coming across as controversial to anyone. My stances on life/death has always been predicated on brain activity. If the woman is brain dead, she isn't a person anymore, she is a complex cluster of cells incubating a smaller, growing cluster of cells, or a person if the brain has developed enough.
Pregnancy, in general, is incredibly weird. A woman grows another human being inside her, forming a parasitic relationship and leeching the woman of her nutrients while distending her belly before forcing it's way out of a cavity half a foot too small to fit without damage. If you aren't freaked out by pregnancy in general, you're not paying enough attention.
In any case, dead is dead. While I think we should be considerate to a family's wishes regarding the disposition of their loved one's remains, the individual themselves no longer care because they are dead. Anything we do with the body afterwards is purely for our own selfish sentimentality (or public health), and even then we rank close family as having the most say in the disposition. So who is closer family than the child of the deceased? If the deceased's child needs the body to survive, I'd put that at a much higher priority morally and ethically than the concerns of people with no medical training who are getting the heebie jeebies.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
You're using the term of art, correct? The Roe court recognized a compelling state interest in the protection of "potential life" that increases the further along a pregnancy is. At the point of fetal viability, the state can ban or restrict abortions as it sees fit.
Likewise, the life of the mother is a compelling state interest at every point.
Further, this law clearly supercedes the advance directive law in texas, and the compelling state interest doesn't come into question unless we're taking this to a higher court.
EDIT: Reading the advance directive law - if the patient is brain dead, the physician and another adult (listed in the law) make the decision. This law is in no way an end-all, must-comply affair. There are several provisions written into the law itself that allow the doctor, the patient, or someone with medical PoA to cancel or ignore an advance directive.
EDIT EDIT: Even if a directive is properly given, a doctor may completely ignore it regardless and his decision is reviewed by a medical ethics committee. The patient is treated in the meantime. Furthermore, there is no liability of any kind to anyone for violating an advance directive. Why was this brought up as if it were something serious?
Final Edit:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.
Long story short, if we're going federal on this, the state has a compelling interest in the fetus's life, and the laws reasonably allow for exactly what is happening, considering the 18 weeks shes into the pregnancy. Hell, abortions are completely BANNED after 20 weeks in Texas.
You're misreading the law. There is no provision to go to an ethics board with the consent of a physician and a spouse, because an advance directive on end-of-life decisions is invalidated if a woman is pregnant.
"If the above persons are not available, or if I have not designated a spokesperson, I understand that a spokesperson will be chosen for me following standards specified in the laws of Texas. If, in the judgment of my physician, my death is imminent within minutes to hours, even with the use of all available medical treatment provided within the prevailing standard of care, I acknowledge that all treatments may be withheld or removed except those needed to maintain my comfort. I understand that under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant. This directive will remain in effect until I revoke it. No other person may do so."
The wishes of the woman, the family, and the husband is to let her die in peace. The case is going to court.
Why does the state have a compelling interest in keeping her on life-support just so she can give birth? Then after the delivery happens, they will yank life support. That doesn't disturb you in the slightest? This woman only matters to the State of Texas in that she can produce babies. Is that the State's only compelling interest, is that she can give birth?
Let's just ignore the legal aspect of it, because Americans in general have a problem with confusing the legal and the moral. What is moral about keeping a brain-dead woman on life support so she can give birth, against the wishes of the woman, her family, and her husband?
Let's just ignore the legal aspect of it, because Americans in general have a problem with confusing the legal and the moral. What is moral about keeping a brain-dead woman on life support so she can give birth, against the wishes of the woman, her family, and her husband?
Um... the preservation of the child's life?
I can understand that you might see this as a controversial issue, and fall on one side of it or another. But what I cannot understand is that you apparently do not see this as a controversial issue, and ask this question rhetorically as if you did not expect the blindingly obvious answer.
I can understand that you might see this as a controversial issue, and fall on one side of it or another. But what I cannot understand is that you apparently do not see this as a controversial issue, and ask this question rhetorically as if you did not expect the blindingly obvious answer.
There is no guarantee that the fetus will survive, or not be born with defects due to the circumstances. In which you are forcing the family and the father with something against their wishes, and the wishes of the mother.
Let's say the child is born normally and healthily. Imagine the guilt the child would feel for the pain the family went through because of Texas law and to keep him or her alive.
This fetus is a political pawn. My first reaction to the case was that it was a tragedy from a bad law, and then the wackos from out of state came out of the woodwork.
And I don't understand why you made one statement that makes one assertion, followed in the second by an opposite assertion.
I live in Texas and this is in the DMN every other day, I know damn well it's a controversial issue. I'm a woman of reproductive age living in Texas, and these tragedies as a result of bad law are going to become more and more common thanks to our perennial governor and rubber-stamp Legislature.
Here's a successful version of events where a different mother was kept alive with explicit wishes to save the baby:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2506281/Baby-born-brain-dead-mother-foetus-survives-15-27-weeks.html
There's not even a fight between the grandparents and the father, apparently they both want her to pass on. So no Terry Shiavo mess, either. I find the second case, while honorable, but when you read the article you see the lengths they had to go to deal with the situation and that the mother was taken off life support 2 days later.
Basically, anti-abortion law has turned women into an axolotl tank before being left to die.
As a conservative, I'm very anti-abortion as a form of birth control except for dour cases. But, this is something that is a bit beyond the pale and one of the major reasons why I believe in the right to privacy under Wade.
A long time ago as a younger man I over heard a group of women discuss when they would terminate a pregnancy over health relations, and there was a time indicator when they would. If it was very early, they would terminate. Beyond that they would carry to term. That has shaped my thinking in the ability for people to decide whether to sacrifice another life.
Arguably, I could see the grandparents having a say in this case considering it is their daughter. However, they're not fighting here and the pregnancy was 18 weeks along. This is the hospital going with Texas' law, which I find to be government over reach. There's not even a doctor here arguing that the child would take a few months to gestate healthily and be born without any problems.
In the case of the lower case, the baby born successfully was 3 lbs, and if you read that article you'll see they had to fight several problems with the woman such as infection and bed sores.
The question also comes down to who pays for this? What if the child is severely mentally retarded? Is a father, who doesn't earn a whole lot on one pay with another child, going to care for this child on social security or rely on the grandparents?
The quality of life without the mother is another factor for the husband, who is also young as well as the weight that will be impacted for resources on the other child. The US isn't known for it's excessively generous welfare benefits, either. Which has been a sticking point with me as a conservative, that a state that requires certain actions taken by individuals must also be willing to share in those burdens. When you send a woman to war, expect to pay for PTSD treatment. When you force a man to care for a potentially sick child and medical costs for keeping the axolotl tank running, against the tank's wishes to be made into a tank, expect to cough up money when his income has been cut in life. I find that sort of dichotomy sickening, while I loath the welfare state, if something is asked of me then I expect to ask of others in return.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Why?
According to the article:
You might not agree with this law, but that sounds like something completely within the rights of the government to mandate.
Personally I side with the law. However, an option to terminate the pregnancy and thereby allow the woman to be taken off life-support should not be denied to the family.
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in keeping a brain-dead woman alive to deliver a baby?
What is the Texas government's compelling interest in passing a law mandating that hospitals administer life-sustaining treatment to pregnant women? Should I really have to explain this?
Yes you should, considering that Texas automatically invalidates an advanced directive if a woman is pregnant. Why not invalidate an advance directive for non-pregnant people who are also brain-dead?
This isn't law in the majority of other states. Which is why I ask.
Obviously because the non-pregnant woman is not pregnant.
What about the pregnancy gives the State of Texas a compelling interest in invalidating an advanced directive?
I want you to lay out your reasoning besides a circular argument.
Are we not clear on what pregnancy means? It's not merely the woman's life, but the unborn child's life as well, that is an issue at stake here.
I completely agree with a provision that prevents the hospital from removing a person off life support if that person is pregnant despite that person having an advanced directive.
That being said, there should also be a provision to allow the termination of that pregnancy so that the advanced directive can then apply. If the state of Texas denies this, then I believe they are in error.
If the fetus's life supersedes the wishes of the mother (even as specified in a legal document on end-of-life decisions), then abortion needs to be outlawed in Texas.
The brain-dead resident can't get an abortion, because a medical power of attorney falls under an advanced directive under Texas law.
You're using the term of art, correct? The Roe court recognized a compelling state interest in the protection of "potential life" that increases the further along a pregnancy is. At the point of fetal viability, the state can ban or restrict abortions as it sees fit.
Likewise, the life of the mother is a compelling state interest at every point.
Further, this law clearly supercedes the advance directive law in texas, and the compelling state interest doesn't come into question unless we're taking this to a higher court.
EDIT: Reading the advance directive law - if the patient is brain dead, the physician and another adult (listed in the law) make the decision. This law is in no way an end-all, must-comply affair. There are several provisions written into the law itself that allow the doctor, the patient, or someone with medical PoA to cancel or ignore an advance directive.
EDIT EDIT: Even if a directive is properly given, a doctor may completely ignore it regardless and his decision is reviewed by a medical ethics committee. The patient is treated in the meantime. Furthermore, there is no liability of any kind to anyone for violating an advance directive. Why was this brought up as if it were something serious?
Final Edit:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.
Long story short, if we're going federal on this, the state has a compelling interest in the fetus's life, and the laws reasonably allow for exactly what is happening, considering the 18 weeks shes into the pregnancy. Hell, abortions are completely BANNED after 20 weeks in Texas.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Well, on the CNN video segment there was an interview with one of the original lawyers who helped to draft the law and said specifically this wasn't it's original intent. She was 18 weeks pregnant, she was within the time period to die. The original drafter said that if she could not be sustained off life support, then she was beyond the limits of the law, anyway.
As a conservative, I have to ask "Whose going to pay for this?" This medical treatment the woman is receiving plus being a premie baby is going to be a huge cost. Is someone on an EMT's salary really going to pay for all that?
This is where the state needs to say that it will bear the burden of the cost on the child's behalf, if the state believes it has a moral obligation, then it presumes a financial cost beyond the norm. Under normal operating conditions, this baby would be dead long ago. Yet, this is also beyond the normal someone shagged someone, oops I'm pregnant, swoop into the clinic and get out the machine. This is way, well beyond that.
The major problem I have with this is also that it's the state saying no, without any charity support or someone coming to the father and advocating on behalf of the child and offering him help with services. That's where my major problem is with this part of conservative philosophy. Sorry bro, bad thing happens, you clean up the mess. Individualism and all that. K thx, bye.
This is what I have said about a community coming to the door and saying, "we want the child to live" and asking how they can help to make the man's life better now and once his child is born and wife has passed. This is what separates a gross miscalculation in cultivating a sense of morality around the issue backed up with reinforcing a good outcome. This is a good neighbor policy in making a law actually work.
Laws do not define the culture, it is the culture that defines the law. However, you can cultivate a change in culture over time to better meter out justice. This is an attempt to legislate morality without building up a point. To be more direct, there was a study where women who were raped would abort more frequently. If women, talked to before the rape or after, about not having an abortion were more likely to carry the child and keep or place up for adoption and subsequently lowered abortion rates in that percentile.
This is what separates a woman under an abortion ban "going to the local coat hanger operator" and someone who takes responsibility for a bad outcome and brings about a good outcome for all parties.
I am uncomfortable with someone being alone in a situation without a way out and heavy downsides. We don't need everyone to be Job in this world, so less Job perhaps more Ruth.
The question isn't misogynistic for his stance, rather it is a question of the supremacy of which individual; the mother or the child. One could argue that your stance is anti-baby or fetist, if such a word even exists. Which goes back to show the strangeness with the technology we have that we must look at our bio ethics and come up with policy and ways to deal with these strange phenomenon. I don't think Highroller is anti-woman at all, and he has a sensible position. He's a Christian, and he's entitled to that position especially since the situation is that you have to decide to whom you discriminate against; the developing fetus/child or the mother. You could just as easily find that belief in a humanist tradition and he probably has been influenced by that anyway. And from what I can recall from a long time ago, I believe that he is a father himself. Which lends him towards a different perspective than your own, someone who has never mentioned having children. This doesn't make you inferior to argue a point about a father, it just makes his experience carry more weight when you begin to ascribe certain words to him and somethings that he feels in the value of a child being born irregardless and then the mother's wishes being matched as a sort of Solomanic judgement.
In short, it's baby and state interest versus the mother and the father. We're in a point that's sort of murky and beyond the precedence.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Brain dead is dead. The "right to die" question is irrelevant, because she's already dead. At worst, this is like breaking somebody's funerary arrangements - it's disregarding their wishes for their vacated meatsuit, but it's not hurting them or anyone else. And breaking somebody's funerary arrangements very seldom has the potential to save another's life. The typical pro-choice arguments of individual self-determination are really shaky here too. The abortion question is a conflict of two overriding concerns: life versus autonomy. When one of those concerns disappears due to the death of the party claiming it, the conflict disappears as well. If a fetus dies, its life is no longer a concern, so there's no controversy over the mother getting rid of it. If a mother dies, her autonomy is no longer a concern, so why should there be a controversy over the fetus using her body?
I think what people are reacting to here, as much as anything else, is just the creepiness of the thought of basically using a corpse as an incubator. And yeah, it's really freaking creepy. But it's not the creepiest procedure in modern medical science. And it's to save a life. I think that's worth a few goosebumps. If you don't like it, invent a working artificial womb and we can use that instead.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At what cost and what risk to the developing child? If the other article was born at 3 lbs., is the risk worth the benefit?
Then we also have to consider the other costs in developing techniques to keep the child in the "axolotl tank" so as not to be premature.
And that's where the messaging problem comes from is the capacity for actual benefits just also beyond the baby for keeping the woman's body "running" as an "axotolt tank" until a certain point or longer to keep the child healthy.
So what you're arguing is that the child has a "life estate" until being viable as it asserts control over the rights of the "axlotl tank," and then the mother can be left to die.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More particularly - the Tleilaxu society forcibly turned all their women into these. They were then used as factories for all sorts of Bio-products. It's a bit metaphorical for an extreme form of masculine superiority/domination.
Desecration of a corpse is also a felony in Texas.
A zombie womb isn't the creepiest procedure in modern medicine?
Face transplants, dude.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
... You're clear on the fact that the alternative is the child dying, right?
I'm fine with harvesting dead people's organs, since there is no one left to harm, but society seems to frown on it.
This is the thing I feel that many people fail to understand.
Honestly, I'm not sure why this is coming across as controversial to anyone. My stances on life/death has always been predicated on brain activity. If the woman is brain dead, she isn't a person anymore, she is a complex cluster of cells incubating a smaller, growing cluster of cells, or a person if the brain has developed enough.
Pregnancy, in general, is incredibly weird. A woman grows another human being inside her, forming a parasitic relationship and leeching the woman of her nutrients while distending her belly before forcing it's way out of a cavity half a foot too small to fit without damage. If you aren't freaked out by pregnancy in general, you're not paying enough attention.
In any case, dead is dead. While I think we should be considerate to a family's wishes regarding the disposition of their loved one's remains, the individual themselves no longer care because they are dead. Anything we do with the body afterwards is purely for our own selfish sentimentality (or public health), and even then we rank close family as having the most say in the disposition. So who is closer family than the child of the deceased? If the deceased's child needs the body to survive, I'd put that at a much higher priority morally and ethically than the concerns of people with no medical training who are getting the heebie jeebies.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You're misreading the law. There is no provision to go to an ethics board with the consent of a physician and a spouse, because an advance directive on end-of-life decisions is invalidated if a woman is pregnant.
"If the above persons are not available, or if I have not designated a spokesperson, I understand that a spokesperson will be chosen for me following standards specified in the laws of Texas. If, in the judgment of my physician, my death is imminent within minutes to hours, even with the use of all available medical treatment provided within the prevailing standard of care, I acknowledge that all treatments may be withheld or removed except those needed to maintain my comfort. I understand that under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant. This directive will remain in effect until I revoke it. No other person may do so."
The wishes of the woman, the family, and the husband is to let her die in peace. The case is going to court.
Why does the state have a compelling interest in keeping her on life-support just so she can give birth? Then after the delivery happens, they will yank life support. That doesn't disturb you in the slightest? This woman only matters to the State of Texas in that she can produce babies. Is that the State's only compelling interest, is that she can give birth?
Let's just ignore the legal aspect of it, because Americans in general have a problem with confusing the legal and the moral. What is moral about keeping a brain-dead woman on life support so she can give birth, against the wishes of the woman, her family, and her husband?
Um... the preservation of the child's life?
I can understand that you might see this as a controversial issue, and fall on one side of it or another. But what I cannot understand is that you apparently do not see this as a controversial issue, and ask this question rhetorically as if you did not expect the blindingly obvious answer.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is no guarantee that the fetus will survive, or not be born with defects due to the circumstances. In which you are forcing the family and the father with something against their wishes, and the wishes of the mother.
Let's say the child is born normally and healthily. Imagine the guilt the child would feel for the pain the family went through because of Texas law and to keep him or her alive.
This fetus is a political pawn. My first reaction to the case was that it was a tragedy from a bad law, and then the wackos from out of state came out of the woodwork.
And I don't understand why you made one statement that makes one assertion, followed in the second by an opposite assertion.
I live in Texas and this is in the DMN every other day, I know damn well it's a controversial issue. I'm a woman of reproductive age living in Texas, and these tragedies as a result of bad law are going to become more and more common thanks to our perennial governor and rubber-stamp Legislature.