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

reply to post by peter vlar


Keeping the woman on life support had nothing to do with religion.

Like I stated earlier, go read the law and case history.

Or you can just keep making things up and continue on in your profound ignorance.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Here ya go, from an article from star-telegram.com dated January 24, 2014

"Texas law didn't anticipate Munoz case, drafters say".

'History of the law

The Texas Advance Directives Act is modeled after a California law that dates back to 1977.

Mayo said in an affidavit that he was part of a large drafting group in 1998-1999 responsible for drafting the Advance Directives Act. The group included representatives from several organizations, including the Texas Medical Association and the Catholic archdiocese of Austin and Texas Right to Life.

They were tasked with taking three existing statutes — the Natural Death Act, the Out-of-Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate law and the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care law — that addressed end-of-life treatment in some fashion and combine them into a single law while eliminating inconsistencies, the document states.'

One of the drafters, Thomas Mayo, is an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University.

Advance Directives, otherwise known as "Death Panels" by what's her name.


Read more here: www.star-telegram.com...=cpy

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I've read the law and its based on people's religious interpretations. The original law was meant to keep pregnant women from being refused treatment if they could not pay or had no insurance. The Texas version took a decidedly religious interpretation. You can deny it all you like but continuing to do so will show that the "profound ignorance" rests solely within you. Nice try with the continuing derogatory remarks, the refuge of the beaten.

reply to post by MOMof3


Congratulations you are learning. Now do you see the part about keeping life support until ~24 weeks?

The county-owned hospital, however, would not allow the family to do so, quoting a portion of Texas law that requires a pregnant women be kept on life support until there is a viable fetus, usually at 24 to 26 weeks.

Read more here: www.star-telegram.com...#storylink=cpy

The fetus was then declared not viable. The viability is determined by the historical precedent of a fetus surviving outside of the womb and (contentious) studies in regards to a fetus feeling pain.

What was your point?

-FBB

peter vlar
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I've read the law and its based on people's religious interpretations. The original law was meant to keep pregnant women from being refused treatment if they could not pay or had no insurance. The Texas version took a decidedly religious interpretation. You can deny it all you like but continuing to do so will show that the "profound ignorance" rests solely within you. Nice try with the continuing derogatory remarks, the refuge of the beaten.

You should probably provide some evidence.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You said there was no religious bent to the law, not according to the drafters of it. Catholics and Religious Right groups.

MOMof3
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

You said there was no religious bent to the law, not according to the drafters of it. Catholics and Religious Right groups.

edit on 25-1-2014 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)

You should probably provide some evidence.

You do realize that when Obama was a senator he pushed legislation which is decisively opposed to this sort of action. Because he identified as a christian would that also classify said law as religiously inspired?

To define a law as religiously inspired you must demonstrate the law based based on religious doctrine, however at the time there was debate around when a fetus is considered human, and there still is.

The waters are very muddy.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Are you from Texas? I did provide the evidence. Sorry, the truth is so unacceptable.

MOMof3
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Are you from Texas? I did provide the evidence. Sorry, the truth is so unacceptable.

Did you sight where he used scripture as the reasoning for the amendment? You saw the word Methodist and thought that was evidence? Its NOT a religious indoctrination center, it is a state sanctioned university for upper division eduction and performs to such standards.

The school has some prestigious accolades;
en.wikipedia.org...

You have got to be kidding me . . . is that really what you are considering evidence?

What a joke.

-FBB

www.smu.edu...

A nationally ranked private university with seven degree-granting schools, SMU is a distinguished center for teaching and research located in the heart of Dallas.

SMU was founded by what is now The United Methodist Church, in partnership with civic leaders, and was shaped by the entrepreneurial spirit of the region. The University is nonsectarian in its teaching and committed to academic freedom and open inquiry.

This is one of their professors receiving an award for their liberal arts programs;
Book by Meadows dean receives national award
from Association of American Colleges and Universities
www.smu.edu...

This year’s Ness award winner was selected by a committee of higher education leaders including Dianne Harrison (chair), President, California State University-Northridge; Jim Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and Environment, Arizona State University; and Marc Roy, Provost, Goucher College.

“José Bowen’s work is both compelling and useful,” said Dianne Harrison, “and it also is very cognizant of the ideals and values of liberal education.”

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


So, perhaps you could make it crystal clear WHAT, EXACTLY is your pov on this issue?

It seems most of us took your objections as 'pro-life' dogma. If that isn't the case, perhaps you "should provide some evidence" to the contrary.

Just sayin'. That baby would have led a miserable life, which would have made the father and family miserable (no matter how vailantly they marched along).

I just don't get your point.

wildtimes
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

So, perhaps you could make it crystal clear WHAT, EXACTLY is your pov on this issue?

It seems most of us took your objections as 'pro-life' dogma. If that isn't the case, perhaps you "should provide some evidence" to the contrary.

Just sayin'. That baby would have led a miserable life, which would have made the father and family miserable (no matter how vailantly they marched along).

I just don't get your point.

There was so much pseudo-compassion in this thread it was disgusting. Look at the tactics most of these responses engage in while crusading against their perception of "pro-choice dogma." They engage in a very selective compassion which only serves their own interests, usually selfish.

Like rabid dogs straining against their chains, chomping at the bit.

Just go back and read Bigfurrytexan's antics.

I never had a problem waiting until the term which viability is officially recognized. I happen to know several people with MD, family members suffering from dementia and turrets, and debilitating paralysis who are happy to go on living. I also happen to know several people who are perfectly healthy and absolutely miserable to the point of suicidal thoughts.

It was pathetic how excited these individuals were to pull the plug before official standards to "save money," or "prevent a miserable existence." Continuing on, they never even sited legal or medical precedent supporting their desires to end it all before the fat lady sings.

If it caused them emotional distress so be it, the extraordinary lack of intellectual integrity was appalling.

So many people calling the law wrong without knowing the law or even how to find it, claiming associations of its origins without sources . . .

-FBB

I'm glad Im not a fetus anymore.

That was scary.

FriedBabelBroccoli

I never had a problem waiting until the term which viability is officially recognized. I happen to know several people with MD, family members suffering from dementia and turrets, and debilitating paralysis who are happy to go on living. I also happen to know several people who are perfectly healthy and absolutely miserable to the point of suicidal thoughts.

It was pathetic how excited these individuals were to pull the plug before official standards to "save money," or "prevent a miserable existence." Continuing on, they never even sited legal or medical precedent supporting their desires to end it all before the fat lady sings.

Of course you had no problem with it. It's terribly easy to pontificate and hide behind a statute when its not someone you cared for laying dead in front of you for over 2 months after they actually died. Heavens forbid if that sad excuse for a husband wants to grieve for his loss and attend to the child he still had, who also lost their mother. You're a bundle of compassion, I'm sure they get you to speak at all the funerals don't they? In the end, the fetus is not viable so your entire self pious homily is for naught so who cares what the cut off for viability may or may not be. You did a pretty good job of keeping your true views under raps but it unraveled quickly with your mocking of pro life dogma.

If it caused them emotional distress so be it, the extraordinary lack of intellectual integrity was appalling.

What's really pathetic is that you truly believe that to be so.

So many people calling the law wrong without knowing the law or even how to find it, claiming associations of its origins without sources . . .

-FBB

You just love make acant assumptions don't you? I guess it's easier to deflect away from all the legitimate questions that have been posed to you when you can just mock people like a 12 year old bully on the school bus.

reply to post by peter vlar

Nice try with the continuing derogatory remarks, the refuge of the beaten.

Oh here we go, now you start with the derogatory remarks, name calling, and kicking dirt.

you when you can just mock people like a 12 year old bully on the school bus.

Keep it up bro.

I guess it's easier to deflect away from all the legitimate questions that have been posed to you

Like what?

Oh and I am still waiting for any evidence of your claims earlier.

I've read the law and its based on people's religious interpretations.

Are you ever going to get around to this, or are you going to pout, call me names, and continue on like you have been?

-FBB

PS

In the end, the fetus is not viable so your entire self pious homily is for naught so who cares what the cut off for viability may or may not be.

Yes, let the compassion flow. It suits you well.

Well I am glad that the Frankenstein experiment of using a death women's body as an incubator for a fetus is over, somebody will pay for the atrocity that was been committed on this case.

And I hope that all those guilty of such atrocity will face God and hell if both actually exist somewhere.

Our society is just getting creepy and creepy all in the name of mercy and pro choice.

It was no mercy in this case just an experiment.

reply to post by Year1


Well cant really say and the link and nobody I would bet has any way of knowing what is really happening. And short of going there or a camera into the woman in questions room all we have is what people said about it based on what they have been told by others, and even the family and husband seem to not want to talk about it. And braindead is not some made up factor, that is unless they completely lied about the fact that she had some sort of brain aneurism, and a bunch of other things. And its not that hard to competently mess anybody up by depriving the brain of oxygen. I could put you in a choke cutting off the Carotid Arterys, and put you to sleep in half a minute, and all I would have to do to make sure you never wake up again is hold on to that choke for a few moments more. Proving that the brain is as important as the beating heart no doupt. And depriving the brain of oxygen does have fatal drawbacks you know, and in a developing fetus it would lead to complications no doubt and all around.

But yes braindeath you can survive even if its not likely, but when the heart stops beating its pretty much over. Belief you me I know. Anyways, and putting all that aside, I think they said the baby has not developed well and already has heart problems among other things, if that is to be believed then well that would speak for itself. And your likely right that the discriptions of decaying corpse is far out there, yet she is likely not technically alive and is being used as an incubator for the baby by synthetic means, and I did not real all of it but they never did say if her heart is beating or if not. In all it does sound like an experiment more then anything else, and most of the machines and procedures she would be hooked up to would be to keep the fetus alive and growing.

I suppose either her heart is still beating and that's where we get the braindead label, but in whatever capacity she would still be technically alive. Its kind of obvious she is just being used in a sort of incubating fetus experiment, and even that they botched as some said they have both been without oxygen for some period of time. But in all what I am trying to say is, we dont have any real facts only trickled down supposed facts, and ultimately law, believe, rules and what not. I dont think all the people on this thread would really know what is happening. Were sort of playing around with echoes, he said she said. The husband may have given the green light in attemptive resuscitation, but from all that was said in the link that has failed, and now its turned into a whole new thing.

Srry dude I dont think you or any of our input has any merit or validity we dont even have all the facts, and those we do could be false and prejudiced. And I think it will and should come down to what the husband and family wants, not what some people on a website think or what some highly misinterpreted believes and laws say.

Our lives are in His hands. We are that baby. There is a reason why this is in the media. There is a reason why the decision is in that father's hands. I fear the harsh calls for this baby's death, by unplugging it's mother's life support, has spiritual ramifications beyond comprehending. Do we wish to have our own cords cut?

I disagree on that part. The whole thing is bizarre and messed up, but we are not that baby. You have not been in that situation and I would bet nobody else on this site has. We dont have eyes on the ground and hands on approach, we have speculations and believes. All of which is concerning something that does not include us. Were like the people who watch a sports match and it goes back, and all of a sudden everybody becomes and expert and starts giving advice on what they should do and what to do. Everybody is entitled to there opinion. But nothing more. And I see its been settled and there going to pull the cord, I mean its sad and a really messed up way to go, but even if half those things they have been saying were true then it would not end well for the growing fetus in the woman, and for her? Well they already attempted resuscitation on her even that was against her wishes but her husband did so anyways. So... What else is there to say about it?

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


FYI a choke cuts off the airflow through the trachea.

A strangulation cuts off the blood flow through the arteries.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Ad hominem attack.

Stop it, please.

Leonidas
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Ad hominem attack.

Stop it, please.

Ad Hominem
www.merriam-webster.com...

1ad ho·mi·nem
adjective (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Maybe you should report it?

Speaking of appealing to prejudices, here are a few of your statements in this thread;

"Pro-life" is Orwellian Double-speak that means one group imposing their will on others.

Prove it maybe?

Some people feel the need to contort the law and the language to justify their beliefs to others.

On occasion I wish many of the members here posted their religious and political beliefs in their signature or avatar.

Like a badge to identify them?

You have engaged in plenty of ad hominem attacks yourself.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I really do not understand where your anger and defense of this sci-fi experiment comes from? It is illogical. Put yourself in the mother's place for a second, if possible. Would this really be your wish for you and your baby? To bring it into this cold world, deformed, with no mother, the only one who would love it unconditionally? God gave us the intelligence to make ventilators to save lives, not this.