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

TheToastmanCometh
reply to post by Year1

 

I don't know your financial situation, but do you have enough money to raise an extremely disabled child, or are you just going to drop it off at a hospice like Bethesda where I live?

Bethesda is a living home for severely disabled children and adults, and that's not cheap either.

Speaking of being BRAIN DEAD, Toastman you should probably read the quote which the Bigfurrytexan quoted.

Nowhere in there does Year1 claim they are going to provide for this child if it were to survive . . . . They said that all people deserve love and compassion and what most people in this article are saying is that all handicapped people alive today are sub-human who should have been aborted.

SERIOUSLY FOLKS READ THE FREAKING POSTS YOURSELF

Year1
The baby deserves an opportunity. The baby deserves compassion and mercy. What I see is that people are viewing the purposeful killing of him to be the 'merciful thing' in this situation, and in doing so, they send a very powerful message to every deformed or disabled person out there in this world - you are not worthy of life in our world. Is this truly the way you all feel about them, that it would have been better had they not been born or worse still, had had their lives snuffed out simply because of an abnormality? Do you realise that this is what you are saying?

Basically the big ape just made something up and put words in Year1's mouth.

-FBB

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh


exactly...and those cases posted above, the mothers were farther along...both obviously had c sections...the british baby seems fine and the twins, they are not sure at this point.


the baby in the current case, it is obvious (by the current info in the article) that development stopped when the mom became brain dead, this was not the case in those 2 other stories mentioned

reply to post by research100



not in response to myself but the other posts above me.
would it not be compassionate and merciful to disconnect and let nature take its rightful course for this mother and baby in view of what is known about this particular case...instead of continuing this charade.

Year1
The baby deserves an opportunity. The baby deserves compassion and mercy. What I see is that people are viewing the purposeful killing of him to be the 'merciful thing' in this situation, and in doing so, they send a very powerful message to every deformed or disabled person out there in this world - you are not worthy of life in our world. Is this truly the way you all feel about them, that it would have been better had they not been born or worse still, had had their lives snuffed out simply because of an abnormality? Do you realise that this is what you are saying?

What opportunity is it exactly that you're referring to? The opportunity to drool all over itself because it doesn't even have the mental capacity to understand what swallowing is? I remember a story about a child that was born missing most of the brain... It couldn't sense anything, it couldn't move, it couldn't think; and yet its mother acted as if it was any other normal human child after refusing to have it aborted. The fact of the matter is, there comes a certain point when you have to let go of political correctness and emotion and realize certain individuals can't even be considered human. If this child is born, it isn't going to grow up and cure aids, it's not going to lead people to God, it's not going to solve some major social issue... It's going to be a mass of flesh and bone that other people will have to pay for for no reason other than to prevent someone from being offended by allowing it to die.

I just finished re reading the original thread on this to see if there was updates then i saw this!

Such a sad development, i honestly hadn't thought about this happening, i had assumed they would have already performed the 5 month anatomy scan when publishing the article about the father suing the hospital and would have known if the baby was in good health or not, common sense says they would have especially when going to court over keeping the lady on life support for that baby you think they would have had to argue that the baby was in good health, so that makes no sense and was misleading.. In this case its just inhumane to keep this baby alive if its in such a state as that he/she could be in pain, really sad.

trollz

Year1
The baby deserves an opportunity. The baby deserves compassion and mercy. What I see is that people are viewing the purposeful killing of him to be the 'merciful thing' in this situation, and in doing so, they send a very powerful message to every deformed or disabled person out there in this world - you are not worthy of life in our world. Is this truly the way you all feel about them, that it would have been better had they not been born or worse still, had had their lives snuffed out simply because of an abnormality? Do you realise that this is what you are saying?

What opportunity is it exactly that you're referring to? The opportunity to drool all over itself because it doesn't even have the mental capacity to understand what swallowing is? I remember a story about a child that was born missing most of the brain... It couldn't sense anything, it couldn't move, it couldn't think; and yet its mother acted as if it was any other normal human child after refusing to have it aborted. The fact of the matter is, there comes a certain point when you have to let go of political correctness and emotion and realize certain individuals can't even be considered human. If this child is born, it isn't going to grow up and cure aids, it's not going to lead people to God, it's not going to solve some major social issue... It's going to be a mass of flesh and bone that other people will have to pay for for no reason other than to prevent someone from being offended by allowing it to die.

Your use of the term 'NOT' is unbecoming of someone bragging about an IQ 0f 142.

I believe the word you are actually looking for is 'unlikely' or perhaps 'improbable.'

If your standards for being allowed to live, or not be considered a bag of flesh and bone, is curing aids or leading people to God then it seems most people in existence today are merely that, bags of flesh and bone. You better get to work if you don't want to be something you seem to think is disgusting and unworthy.
-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


iq rule #1: whatever number someone throws out is either a lie, or is incorrect.
iq rule #2: iq is insanely useless as a test.

that said...while what you say may be right, it is an awefully fine hair to split.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

iq rule #1: whatever number someone throws out is either a lie, or is incorrect.
iq rule #2: iq is insanely useless as a test.

that said...while what you say may be right, it is an awefully fine hair to split.

Speaking of hairs to split.

What gave you the idea that Year1 claimed they were going to provide for this infant if it is not aborted/ a still birth/ etc?

You make claims about not getting emotionally worked up and yet in the very same post you resort to tactics commonly associated with such activity. Namely making up baseless claims and proclaiming them as if they actually happened.

What was you motivation?

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli

trollz

Year1
The baby deserves an opportunity. The baby deserves compassion and mercy. What I see is that people are viewing the purposeful killing of him to be the 'merciful thing' in this situation, and in doing so, they send a very powerful message to every deformed or disabled person out there in this world - you are not worthy of life in our world. Is this truly the way you all feel about them, that it would have been better had they not been born or worse still, had had their lives snuffed out simply because of an abnormality? Do you realise that this is what you are saying?

What opportunity is it exactly that you're referring to? The opportunity to drool all over itself because it doesn't even have the mental capacity to understand what swallowing is? I remember a story about a child that was born missing most of the brain... It couldn't sense anything, it couldn't move, it couldn't think; and yet its mother acted as if it was any other normal human child after refusing to have it aborted. The fact of the matter is, there comes a certain point when you have to let go of political correctness and emotion and realize certain individuals can't even be considered human. If this child is born, it isn't going to grow up and cure aids, it's not going to lead people to God, it's not going to solve some major social issue... It's going to be a mass of flesh and bone that other people will have to pay for for no reason other than to prevent someone from being offended by allowing it to die.

Your use of the term 'NOT' is unbecoming of someone bragging about an IQ 0f 142.

I believe the word you are actually looking for is 'unlikely' or perhaps 'improbable.'

If your standards for being allowed to live, or not be considered a bag of flesh and bone, is curing aids or leading people to God then it seems most people in existence today are merely that, bags of flesh and bone. You better get to work if you don't want to be something you seem to think is disgusting and unworthy.
-FBB

edit on 23-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

My standard for being considered human is not being so severely mentally retarded that you can't physically survive without constant attention.
It's fine if someone is deformed or disabled; look at Stephen Hawking, for example. As for mental retardation, many people who would be considered retarded are able to bring joy to and have a positive effect on those around them... But this is not one of those cases. It's a perversion of nature. The child SHOULD be dead, but we are keeping it alive artificially because of laws and regulations.

trollz
My standard for being considered human is not being so severely mentally retarded that you can't physically survive without constant attention.

It's fine if someone is deformed or disabled; look at Stephen Hawking, for example. As for mental retardation, many people who would be considered retarded are able to bring joy to and have a positive effect on those around them... But this is not one of those cases. It's a perversion of nature. The child SHOULD be dead, but we are keeping it alive artificially because of laws and regulations.

Stephen Hawking cannot feed himself, he literally cannot physically survive without constant attention, LoL.

So now that you have established Stephen Hawking as a perversion of nature, who is to say that if this child comes to term and in fact survives with debilitating disabilities that it wouldn't bring joy and happiness to someone?

You seem very much dead set on aborting the fetus regardless of potentialities. Many people are kept alive artificially should they all be aborted then?

Off topic, and out of curiosity, what would you consider a trans-human or cyborg? Would they also be perversions of nature kept alive artificially?

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli

trollz
My standard for being considered human is not being so severely mentally retarded that you can't physically survive without constant attention.

It's fine if someone is deformed or disabled; look at Stephen Hawking, for example. As for mental retardation, many people who would be considered retarded are able to bring joy to and have a positive effect on those around them... But this is not one of those cases. It's a perversion of nature. The child SHOULD be dead, but we are keeping it alive artificially because of laws and regulations.

Stephen Hawking cannot feed himself, he literally cannot physically survive without constant attention, LoL.

So now that you have established Stephen Hawking as a perversion of nature, who is to say that if this child comes to term and in fact survives with debilitating disabilities that it wouldn't bring joy and happiness to someone?

You seem very much dead set on aborting the fetus regardless of potentialities. Many people are kept alive artificially should they all be aborted then?

Off topic, and out of curiosity, what would you consider a trans-human or cyborg? Would they also be perversions of nature kept alive artificially?

-FBB

Stephen Hawking is physically disabled, not mentally retarded. I'm talking about mental retardation. I clearly mentioned him in order to differentiate between mental retardation and physical disability.
My use of the term "perversion of nature" was in regards to the child being kept alive artificially while inside his brain-dead mother's body.
I would consider a cyborg a cyborg and a trans-human a trans-human, neither of which apply to this conversation.


Well, I might as well... Let's say a person has their body modified technologically... For example, they are born without legs, so they have robotic legs installed that are wired to their brains. Is this a perversion of nature? No. It's the use of technology to improve the quality of life.
Is this child being kept alive with technology for the purposes of improving its quality of life? Absolutely not. It's just, as another member put it, a politically-correct pissing match between two groups of people.


And another thing while I'm at it: People need to stop being so horrified by the idea of death. Death is natural, it's normal, it happens. There's nothing wrong with dying. Everybody needs to realize this fact and develop the ability to be content with it, especially when trying to prevent it causes noting but suffering for all involved.

reply to post by windword


The mother is not in a vegetative state, she is just simply dead and decomposing as her body is being used to incubate the fetus. She is on a machine that does the breathing and blood pumping for her to keep oxygenated blood and IV administered nutrients flowing to the fetus. Because her own body is incapable of caring for it at all. A fetus whose own heartbeat was resuscitated when the EMTs arrived on the scene despite having been stopped for an undetermined amount of time.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

You seem very much dead set on aborting the fetus regardless of potentialities. Many people are kept alive artificially should they all be aborted then?

In this case, it's all about the dignity of the mother, the wishes of the family and viability of the fetus.

This isn't a case about abortion. There can be no abortion when the mother is already dead. There is no such thing as a pregnant dead person. She is an organ donor at this point, and the donation is futile.

At this point, there is only artificially keeping the fetus alive. There is no murder here, there is merely calling a time of death. It's time to stop the CPR (life support), and call it.

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

You seem very much dead set on aborting the fetus regardless of potentialities. Many people are kept alive artificially should they all be aborted then?

In this case, it's all about the dignity of the mother, the wishes of the family and viability of the fetus.

This isn't a case about abortion. There can be no abortion when the mother is already dead. There is no such thing as a pregnant dead person. She is an organ donor at this point, and the donation is futile.

At this point, there is only artificially keeping the fetus alive. There is no murder here, there is merely calling a time of death. It's time to stop the CPR (life support), and call it.

Definition of abortion since you don't seem to understand what an abortion is;
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2: monstrosity
3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest

The mother is brain dead and cutting the life support would result in the death of the fetus. Abortion is indeed the correct term to be used here.

Also who cares about a dead woman's dignity?

She is dead and therefore has lost all her humanity has she not? A dead person is not fully human just as a fetus is not fully human, they are merely bags of flesh and bone.

Also were you referring to the fetus as an organ? If not my mistake, but a fetus is not an organ . . .

-FBB

EDIT
How about this?
Why not try it for science?
I know how giddy the word science makes you all.
Seriously I am sure something could be learned about attempting to bring the fetus to term or identifying what actually goes wrong in the process.

So why not do it for science?
/EDIT

FriedBabelBroccoli
Also who cares about a dead woman's dignity?

Her family does.

FriedBabelBroccoli
Seriously I am sure something could be learned about attempting to bring the fetus to term or identifying what actually goes wrong in the process.
So why not do it for science?

Because this isn't a Nazi death camp where we do grotesque medical experiments just out of curiosity.
I'm sure doctors could learn something by injecting hydrochloric acid into your eyeballs next time you take a trip to the ER with a sprained ankle, but we don't do that sort of thing.

reply to post by trollz


Yeah . . . except I am not brain dead and on life support. By law they have to keep the corpse on the machines until the fetus aborts or comes to term. This in no ways is comparable to Dr. Mengele's experiments which mostly involved living subjects.

The irony of you using other people's feelings being hurt to justify the dignity of the dead woman and aborting the fetus . . .

It's going to be a mass of flesh and bone that other people will have to pay for for no reason other than to prevent someone from being offended by allowing it to die.

Nice try at being outraged though I chuckled.

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

iq rule #1: whatever number someone throws out is either a lie, or is incorrect.
iq rule #2: iq is insanely useless as a test.

that said...while what you say may be right, it is an awefully fine hair to split.

Speaking of hairs to split.

What gave you the idea that Year1 claimed they were going to provide for this infant if it is not aborted/ a still birth/ etc?

You make claims about not getting emotionally worked up and yet in the very same post you resort to tactics commonly associated with such activity. Namely making up baseless claims and proclaiming them as if they actually happened.

What was you motivation?

-FBB

Once upon a time I had an uncle that died. He was in a really bad motorbike accident that ripped off his arm, smashed his face/head, and tore up his lower back/hips. He bled to death in a pasture near Odessa, TX. Several minutes later, the ambulance shows up to this rural area to find him dead. They give him plasma and find a weak pulse start to emerge. By the time he is to the ER, they have managed to get him going again. He tells all the classic "light at the end of the tunnel" stories.

His mind is sharp, now. it took a couple of years for the stupor to kind of start to lift. It took him 10 years to be able to go to the bathroom on his own. He still cannot walk. The doctors didn't bother to set any broken bones, assuming that a) he wouldn't survive, and b) the medics were morons for not calling him dead and putting a tag on him (paraphrasing a quote from a doctor who was a little more direct than you would expect). So the arm that wasn't ripped off by the barbed wire fence....it was left kind of disjointed, mishappen, and unusable for any fine motor functions. They did a surgery to release a nerve that has allowed him to grasp a cup, but he still tends to crush it if is is paper or thin plastic.

Obviously, he cannot work. Before he was the heir to my grandfathers air conditioning company and 1/5th of his rental estate. Now, just to keep him capable of paying the bills, he can't own any properties. The house he lives in was the best of what he was to inherit, fixed up to handle his electric wheelchair. He scrapes by on meager disability.

I share his opinion; he was dead. he was meant to die. The system that demanded extraordinary measures to save him should now be burdened with providing for him.

This is a major point of contention to what Year1 and my viewpoint is. Year1 seems fine with accepting that responsibility. I do not. Thus, you get the gist of my somewhat hyperbolized response. Do we care to split hairs, or just eat broccoli?

ETA: clarifying my uncles condition: he spent 5 months in a coma, and continues to suffer from ischemic damage to his legs, thus making him incapable of walking. Being 6'6", it isn't likely he'll regain his feet.

This story is disturbing on many levels to me.I'm not sure what the pro/anti-Euthanasia numbers are but I'm afraid the child hasn't a chance at a normal life even if the mother were alive and healthy as opposed to dead.I mean we put our pets to sleep to end their suffering.Sometimes people don't have a chance to make the keep alive at any cost decision.If we can't all agree on the law then maybe we should leave the decision up to their families,although in this case I don't agree with the deceased women's parents.

FriedBabelBroccoli
The irony of you using other people's feelings being hurt to justify the dignity of the dead woman and aborting the fetus . . .

...Except that I didn't do that.
You asked something along the lines of "Who would care about a dead woman's dignity?", to which I responded that her family would. That was in response to something you said, not me. Are you debating the assertion that her family cares about her dignity? Am I incorrect in assuming her family cares?

I'm making it a point to express my opinion that I believe the child should be left to die, as would be natural, rather than keeping it alive just because some people would be offended by letting it die. That opinion has nothing to do with my response to your question.
Yes, some people would be offended by the child being allowed to die. Yes, her family probably cares about her dignity. You have two opposing sides involved in this story... There's nothing ironic about pointing out the obvious.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

The mother is brain dead and cutting the life support would result in the death of the fetus. Abortion is indeed the correct term to be used here.

Abortion is a medical procedure, performed with the purpose of ejecting a dead fetus from a living woman's womb. Unplugging a machine that is keeping a "corpse" alive, stopping life support to the body of dead woman serving as a human incubator, uterus donor, is not abortion. The natural death of a pregnant woman, resulting in the death of the fetus is not abortion.

Discontinuing CPR, because of the patient is non-responsive isn't murder, and allowing her fetus to die isn't abortion.

No one has the "right" to demand or expect to be saved by extraordinary and extreme measures, especially with someone else's money and means. What we do to save lives and better the quality of life for the disenfranchised is altruistic. It's voluntary and charitable, not forced by robbing other's of peace of mind, dignity and free will.