It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fetus of brain dead pregnant woman, "Deformed" and "Abnormal"

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 

Thanks for the thread. I remember hearing about this last night. Your post makes me thinking it more deeply. Right and wrong is sometimes hard to determine.

What's natural anymore? Like you say, it's natural if the woman had died and her baby had died with her. On the other hand, is it natural for us to stand back and let her die that way? And is it natural for us to keep her "alive" on the machine even if we follow our natural impulses? What's natural about a deformed baby living inside an essentially dead mother? Are cities natural? Are computers natural?

And yet very little is natural anymore. Through forest management we're changing forests from what they would have been on their own. We're changing ecosystems by depriving them of certain species and by also introducing new ones or culling others. We've already injected a lot of pollution into the water as well. We also inject lots of sound pollution and visitors into the wild. Is it natural when a helicopter flies over a forest to spray noxious weeds or invasive species? (Yes, they'll spray after planting new seedlings to speed up their growth. And beleive it or not, some of these seedlings are clones. Attack of the clones!!??)

It's increasingly hard to separate natural and unnatural in todays world. The definitions keep shifting. Answers that worked in the past might not work now. Answers that work now might not work in the future for the same reason.
edit on 25-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Leonidas
I dont think you realize the full situation. The viability of a fetus that young being deprived of oxygen for that long let alone one left to develop for over 25 weeks in a profoundly compromised mother and womb is not a child.

There is no "opportunity" for this fetus. The doctors and family are the only ones to be making the decision of what is best in this no-win situation.

The family deserves our compassion, not second guessing or imposition of other peoples spiritual beliefs.


The law in Texas states until viability, which is defined as around 24 weeks. This was the most likely reason the judge's decision was to remove the woman from life support by Monday.

She was at 23 weeks, so there was only a week left until it would not have been an issue.

The condition of the fetus would not have justified, BY LAW, that the life support be continued.

There was no chance they would leave her on life support for another 25 weeks.

But you can make this a backdoor into arguing or persecuting people based on their religion if you want.

-FBB



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Right, keep the poor thing alive longer so it can develop to better appreciate the Hell in has been conceived into.
Please don't try this sick experiment!



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


It makes sense that the baby's gender would be indistinguishable. If there is no awareness in the mother, then the spark of life cannot be transferred to the baby. It then develops without the definition of creation.
If this baby was brought to term then it would probably never be connected. Not sure exactly what that would mean as it would be life without life. My best guess is that it would not survive the light.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I don't understand what you're trying to say here.



The law in Texas states until viability, which is defined as around 24 weeks. This was the most likely reason the judge's decision was to remove the woman from life support by Monday.


Texas states WHAT until viability?


She was at 23 weeks, so there was only a week left until it would not have been an issue.


Why wouldn't there be any issues after 23 weeks?


The condition of the fetus would not have justified, BY LAW, that the life support be continued.


What law?


There was no chance they would leave her on life support for another 25 weeks.


I agree, but what are you basing that assumption on?


But you can make this a backdoor into arguing or persecuting people based on their religion if you want.


Personally, I see the insinuation of religion being a motive here as absurd! This is the most ungodly and unnatural, Frankensteinyist experiment that a state law can be! "Life" has not one thing to do with it. It is however very telling of the true pro-life agenda really as being the control of women and "forced birth" after all.


edit on 25-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
@FBB,
Just stop..Quit digging the hole you're in.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


The law in Texas states until viability, which is defined as around 24 weeks. This was the most likely reason the judge's decision was to remove the woman from life support by Monday.

Texas states WHAT until viability?

She was at 23 weeks, so there was only a week left until it would not have been an issue.

Why wouldn't there be any issues after 23 weeks?

The condition of the fetus would not have justified, BY LAW, that the life support be continued.

What law?

There was no chance they would leave her on life support for another 25 weeks.

I agree, but what are you basing that assumption on?

But you can make this a backdoor into arguing or persecuting people based on their religion if you want.

Personally, I see the insinuation of religion being a motive here as absurd! This is the most ungodly and unnatural, Frankensteinyist experiment that a state law can be! "Life" has not one thing to do with it. It is however very telling of the true pro-life agenda really as being the control of women and "forced birth" after all.

edit on 25-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


Go read the law and case history . . . .

A simple google scholar search provides mounds of source material.

This was no forced birth on a woman as she was declared legally dead . . .

Get a clue.

-FBB



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

greydaze
@FBB,
Just stop..Quit digging the hole you're in.


Yeah, I should shut my mouth and listen to the idiots who don't even bother to read the background or source material.

#@greydaze, go back to twitter, this website indicates who you are replying to when you click on the button that says 'reply.'

-FBB



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Weak sauce Kiddo.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Oh okay, here we go again. You just want to post posts that make no sense so that you can insult those who try to respond. You are a lost cause.

Buh by



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Oh okay, here we go again. You just want to post posts that make no sense so that you can insult those who try to respond. You are a lost cause.
Buh by


A fetus is considered viable by around 20-24 weeks of gestation in Texas. The law which everyone is siting is based on a CA right to life amendment after a court case where a father demanded the mother of his child be kept on life support to give the child a chance.

This corpse was around the 22-23rd week of gestation at which point little legal wrangling would be required to end life support as the fetus had reached a term at which it could legally be considered viable or not.

I don't get what you don't understand, if it was how to do a google scholar search then I suggest you do a regular google search for google scholar and look up 1999 Texas life support amendment. There are plenty of online legal dictionaries to verify definitions one does understand.

You come across as too lazy to actually do any research and rather spout your opinion regardless of historical precedent.

-FBB

EDIT
The reason I am mocking most the people in this thread is that they were all demanding she be taken off life support because the fetus would be disabled and they considered it a burden on society.

Most were operating under the assumption that the woman would be kept on life support for the full 9 months or so of a standard pregnancy, which was NOT the case and NEVER was unless the fetus was considered viable.

That is why I keep digging myself a deeper whole. Most people in this thread are totally ignorant of what was actually going on and screaming about the morality, of this or that, which had very little to do with the actual legal action.

Bunch of emotional clowns
/EDIT
edit on 25-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Edit..**
edit on 25-1-2014 by greydaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



Frankensteinyist

I Love This New Word!!



I don't know what FBB's problem is either; obviously the law has a cutoff gestation period. The family was one week short of that. So it would not have been a 'legal issue' after Monday. It would have been an 'insurance' one. Do you think the hospital ever intended to allow the fetus to reach full term? Why did they refuse except for the stupid "legal interpretation"?

Again, I think it is a good thing the judge said "stop." It was....well....Frankensteiny.

As for bringing deformed, known-to-be-abnormal babies to term; I think it is merciful to let nature take her course. It was grotesque (and stupid) for the hospital to refuse the dad's wishes (along with the mom's).

I believe that when a baby is aborted, miscarried, dies in gestation due to illness/injury of mother, or whatever prenatal calamity - that their soul remains just fine. The 'child' is a means for learning....perhaps intentionally agreed to by the 'destined to not make it' fetus. They return to the ether, and reappear somewhere else.



But, Texas is, well...."A Whole 'Nuther Country".... more so now than ever.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



The reason I am mocking most the people in this thread is that they were all demanding she be taken off life support because the fetus would be disabled and they considered it a burden on society.

Well...for my part, I considered bringing the child to term would be a burden TO THE CHILD.

Yes, I saw all the "who's going to pay for it" posts - but that part never entered my mind. The quality of life of the child was my issue.

Julianna Whetmore is an example. "Google it", FBB.

Your 'mockery' has been intensely "religiously bent" - and it seems now you are back-pedaling. Just sayin'.
That fetus had NO CHANCE of a healthy life; squawks about it possibly being the next "Einstein" or "Hawking" are irrelevant.

Again, I don't care about "who pays for it" - I care about whether the individual who MIGHT HAVE BEEN this fetus is trapped in a horrendous, hazardous situation.

It seems to me there is "no contest". Let them both go.
Ghastly stuff sometimes, Medical Technology.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



The reason I am mocking most the people in this thread is that they were all demanding she be taken off life support because the fetus would be disabled and they considered it a burden on society.

Well...for my part, I considered bringing the child to term would be a burden TO THE CHILD.

Yes, I saw all the "who's going to pay for it" posts - but that part never entered my mind. The quality of life of the child was my issue.

Julianna Whetmore is an example. "Google it", FBB.

Your 'mockery' has been intensely "religiously bent" - and it seems now you are back-pedaling. Just sayin'.
That fetus had NO CHANCE of a healthy life; squawks about it possibly being the next "Einstein" or "Hawking" are irrelevant.

Again, I don't care about "who pays for it" - I care about whether the individual who MIGHT HAVE BEEN this fetus is trapped in a horrendous, hazardous situation.

It seems to me there is "no contest". Let them both go.
Ghastly stuff sometimes, Medical Technology.


Provide evidence for any religious bent please, to justify your accusation. Any reference to God was in response to another member who brought it up. Basically you are either projecting or making things up. If you don't provide any evidence your statement amounts to nothing more than libelous nonsense.

Did I ever engage in mocking you?

Maybe that says something about my method?

-FBB
edit on 25-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Why are you doing this?
Let it go...You lost get over it.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



But you can make this a backdoor into arguing or persecuting people based on their religion if you want.


It seems that you are a pro-life person regardless of the quality of life of the child, and completely indifferent to the woman's "dignity".

Else, it seems you are a medical malpractice lawyer. Do you even really care about this issue at all?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Well what did they expect?
Even if it was normal physically the child would no doubt grow up with other issues due to the fact that the mother was not their to love it, get up move around, no emotions etc.
They should not have tried to save it in the first place.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Oh okay, here we go again. You just want to post posts that make no sense so that you can insult those who try to respond. You are a lost cause.
Buh by


A fetus is considered viable by around 20-24 weeks of gestation in Texas. The law which everyone is siting is based on a CA right to life amendment after a court case where a father demanded the mother of his child be kept on life support to give the child a chance.

This corpse was around the 22-23rd week of gestation at which point little legal wrangling would be required to end life support as the fetus had reached a term at which it could legally be considered viable or not.

I don't get what you don't understand, if it was how to do a google scholar search then I suggest you do a regular google search for google scholar and look up 1999 Texas life support amendment. There are plenty of online legal dictionaries to verify definitions one does understand.

You come across as too lazy to actually do any research and rather spout your opinion regardless of historical precedent.

-FBB

EDIT
The reason I am mocking most the people in this thread is that they were all demanding she be taken off life support because the fetus would be disabled and they considered it a burden on society.

Most were operating under the assumption that the woman would be kept on life support for the full 9 months or so of a standard pregnancy, which was NOT the case and NEVER was unless the fetus was considered viable.

That is why I keep digging myself a deeper whole. Most people in this thread are totally ignorant of what was actually going on and screaming about the morality, of this or that, which had very little to do with the actual legal action.

Bunch of emotional clowns
/EDIT
edit on 25-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


Pot, meet Kettle. I doubt you even grasp the irony of you calling out every other poster in this thread for operating under assumptions and not doing basic research which laughably you are equally guilty of. You have some basic facts or talking points correct, at least on the surface. But when you push the dirt around a little all sorts of things pop out at you. You're sticking point, which seems to be a little bit of back pedaling but let's not digress too much, but your sticking point now seems to be that everyone is an idiot because they would never have let the mother go to full term while brain dead and they would have harvested the fetus by the 24th week of gestation. You seem to be entirely glossing over the fact that this fetus has pronounced deformities with unknown health repercussions and no OB/GYN is going to perform a cesarean section when there is no guarantee that this already unviable child will survive. You are SO focused on making sure this child is "born" no matter the cost to anyone else involved that you neglect reality. The reality is that at 24 weeks, this child could not survive on its own outside of the mother. This child may not survive on its own at full term( which is 39 weeks not49 as your math earlier would seem to indicate), The reality is the mother was adamant of her desire to never be hooked up to a machine to sustain her life or in this case her lack thereof. The reality is that because of some bizarre religious sensibilities of administrators at the hospital that they have forgot the hypocratic oath of Do No Harm and forcing a child into a life of pain and hardship is the exact opposite of doing no harm, not to mention the suffering of the husband, grandparents and sibling of this fetus. The past 8 weeks this poor husband has been forced to relive his wife's death every single day while simultaneously depriving him of being able to grieve and have any sort of closure. Your myopic view of this situation to the detriment of everyone involved including the fetus defies all logic.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



But you can make this a backdoor into arguing or persecuting people based on their religion if you want.


It seems that you are a pro-life person regardless of the quality of life of the child, and completely indifferent to the woman's "dignity".

Else, it seems you are a medical malpractice lawyer. Do you even really care about this issue at all?


So . . . no evidence then? Just your opinion and projections.

That was in response to this statement;


The family deserves our compassion, not second guessing or imposition of other peoples spiritual beliefs.


They were inserting BS that had nothing to do with the imposition of this law based on the actual case history surrounding it. It is only being touted as such by the groups now to justify their beliefs on that issue.

Seriously people were just crying like this was the most disgusting action ever taken by medical or legal authorities and that the outcome of this case would impact future policy. Look up the case history of the lawyers and the journalists doing most of the reporting.

There is a reason we live in a nation of laws. Most of the people calling for the woman to be pulled off of life support don't believe a fetus is an actual person (based on their posting history) and the woman being dead negates her rights as defined by the law so the entire issue was a pointless outcry to pat each other on the back about how horrible and 'frankinstienyist' this was.

The whole issue was almost pointless to be generating such an outcry. There was very little harm to society to keep the woman on life support for two and a half weeks to avoid any sort of malpractice suit and see if any of the negative aspects resolved themselves.

Real 'frankinstienyist' experiments are being conducted mixing human genes with animals with laws being produced to take the fetuses to term and the same people crying about this say nothing or endorse these other experiments. The mixed genes have a much greater chance of deformities and disabilities and you hear nothing.

I did not really have a horse in the race as I perceive the entire situation as nothing but circle-j and just wanted to press people to see how they went about justifying their opinions.

-FBB



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join