Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:07pm

dharma200 wrote: »

The mother died of natural causes. Without the intervention of man, and his machines, the foetus would be dead. It is essentially being kept because of the most ridiculous law Ireland and its religious right has ever colluded together to enforce, due to ideology and mysogyny.
That is the legitimate reason.

So what is your view on medicine. Ever been inoculated? We have been fighting nature for a very long time, we constantly choose to not let nature take its course especially when it comes to survival of our own kind.

dharma200 · 20-12-2014 11:09pm

The woman is dead.
This has nothing to do with innoculations or medicine.

bodice ripper · 20-12-2014 11:10pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

So what is your view on medicine. Ever been inoculated? We have been fighting nature for a very long time, we constantly choose to not let nature take its course especially when it comes to survival of our own kind.

Unless it's starving actual kids. We make that decision every day.

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:10pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

It's not a baby yet, no doubt it will be by the time the cowards in control here drag their feet to avoid making a decision.

And by god you'd better be a vegatarian with that pitch.

How do you know someones a vegetarian?
That' the reason why I never tell anyone

bodice ripper · 20-12-2014 11:11pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

How do you know someones a vegetarian?
That' the reason why I never tell anyone

Plants are living things. Your arguments are weak even for a vegatarian pro lifer...

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:15pm

dharma200 wrote: »

The woman is dead.

Yes she is and has her child still growing in her that the parents are choosing to terminate by pulling the plug but are being prevented by medical professionals for some reason (i presume because they believe the child can survive).

The question is, is it right to pull the plug when there is a possibility this child will survive and if so what is the justification for doing so?

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:19pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Plants are living things. Your arguments are weak even for a vegatarian pro lifer...

is being called a pro lifer an insult?

Anyway if you read back I mention I am for termination if the mothers life is in danger and or has been raped and does not want to have the child of the perpetrator.

That makes me pro choice.

In this particular case the mothers life is not in risk and there has been no mention of whether she was going to terminate anyway so in my opinion there is no justification as of yet.

dharma200 · 20-12-2014 11:22pm

even in Texas they know this is abhorrent to the family where a judge ruled in the same situation that the woman should be allowed to die with dignity. The medical proffesionals are keeping her on life support due to the absoloutley ridiculous situation regarding the 8th ammendment, whereby a feotus is given the same rights as a woman. This means the woman is not treatewd as an autonomous being. This is why the doctors are keeping life ssupport on, becuase they are against one of the most inhuman outrageous laws that is currently active in the state of ireland. It has nothing to do with viability.

dharma200 · 20-12-2014 11:24pm

It is not for some whoevers on the internet to decide. her family are her next of kin. They are the ones who are going through this **** storm due to the most insulting idiotic laws in ireland regarding health care of women and the womans right to bodily autonomy. Dead is dead.

bodice ripper · 20-12-2014 11:28pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

is being called a pro lifer an insult?

Anyway if you read back I mention I am for termination if the mothers life is in danger and or has been raped and does not want to have the child of the perpetrator.

That makes me pro choice.

In this particular case the mothers life is not in risk and there has been no mention of whether she was going to terminate anyway so in my opinion there is no justification as of yet.

No, it's just a statement of fact. You are for the wishes of her parents, the only people left to say what she would have wanted, to be ignored for the rights of a not yet existing child.

Something very telling about the way you keep saying justification.

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:31pm

dharma200 wrote: »

It is not for some whoevers on the internet to decide. her family are her next of kin. They are the ones who are going through this **** storm due to the most insulting idiotic laws in ireland regarding health care of women and the womans right to bodily autonomy. Dead is dead.

Maybe you can give me a good reason as to why a pregnant mother might want the pug pulled? For the sake of the parents suffering? Is that a good enough reason?

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:34pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Something very telling about the way you keep saying justification.

elaborate?

I just think things need to be justified. Taxes, laws, showering, ending a life...... Would you not agree?

(i could probably use a better word than justification, but i cant think of one)

B_Wayne · 20-12-2014 11:38pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

Maybe you can give me a good reason as to why a pregnant mother might want the pug pulled? For the sake of the parents suffering? Is that a good enough reason?

Not just her parents suffer, her existing children will suffer because of this and being forced to keep your dead daughter's body alive is positively warped. It's not an inconvenience to delay the grieving process, it's a trauma that many cannot cope with. And the simple fact is in most normal nations, the decision remains with the next of kin.

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:39pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

You are for the wishes of her parents, the only people left to say what she would have wanted, to be ignored for the rights of a not yet existing child.

Why should the parents be judge and jury over a fetuses future? Yes if they are next of kin they can decide on behalf of the daughter in relation to life support but the fetus can still grow and should have some rights no?

bodice ripper · 20-12-2014 11:40pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

elaborate?

I just think things need to be justified. Taxes, laws, showering, ending a life...... Would you not agree?

(i could probably use a better word than justification, but i cant think of one)

No, I don't. Not if you can't prove there is another person involved. Which you can't.

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:43pm

B_Wayne wrote: »

Not just her parents suffer, her existing children will suffer because of this and being forced to keep your dead daughter's body alive is positively warped. It's not an inconvenience to delay the grieving process, it's a trauma that many cannot cope with. And the simple fact is in most normal nations, the decision remains with the next of kin.

People are put into induced coma's and on life support with the hope of a recovery. Look at michael schumacher. In this case the hope is for the child to be born so why is it warped?

Just because the parents are experiencing trauma is still not justification to end the fetuses life.

Spanish Eyes · 20-12-2014 11:47pm

Where is Dad?

UH, I forgot, he is not married to the woman, so has no rights at all in this matter.

That is not right IMV

bogwalrus · 20-12-2014 11:47pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

No, I don't. Not if you can't prove there is another person involved. Which you can't.

So if I go off an shoot someone I don't need to justify my actions in a court of law and the court then does not need to justify why they have sentenced me to death even though there is very little evidence?

What do you mean prove another person is involved? You mean prove that the fetus should have some rights?

The woman is dead, The fetus is not. Technically the fetus has more rights because it is alive?

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:02am

bogwalrus wrote: »

So if I go off an shoot someone I don't need to justify my actions in a court of law and the court then does not need to justify why they have sentenced me to death even though there is very little evidence?

What do you mean prove another person is involved? You mean prove that the fetus should have some rights?

The woman is dead, The fetus is not. Technically the fetus has more rights because it is alive?

That's the one.

Bacteria are alive.

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:05am

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Where is Dad?

UH, I forgot, he is not married to the woman, so has no rights at all in this matter.

That is not right IMV

Has he spoken out on this matter?

JONJO THE MISER · 21-12-2014 12:06am

If he/she is born, what will they think if they view this thread in 20 years time.

bjork · 21-12-2014 12:08am

bodice ripper wrote: »

Has he spoken out on this matter?

Maybe he wants to retain his privacy. He does not have to expose himself to the vultures in the media. For all we know, one minute himself and the lady are excited and happily pregnant and the next the pro abortion campaign are gnashing their teeth to use his partner as a poster girl for their campaign.

I wouldn't go public either.

We haven't heard anything about or from him and already the rumors are flying.

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:11am

bjork wrote: »

Maybe he wants to retain his privacy. He does not have to expose himself to the vultures in the media. For all we know, one minute himself and the lady are excited and happily pregnant and the next the pro abortion campaign are gnashing their teeth to use his partner as a poster girl for their campaign.

I wouldn't go public either.

Could well be. Could be he doesn't care. Could be he doesn't know.

But in the absence of any info on his wishes, bemoaning the trampling of his rights seems premature.

bjork · 21-12-2014 12:21am

bodice ripper wrote: »

Could well be. Could be he doesn't care. Could be he doesn't know.

But in the absence of any info on his wishes, bemoaning the trampling of his rights seems premature.

I didn't "bemoan the trampling of his rights"?

Smidge · 21-12-2014 12:23am

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

If he/she is born, what will they think if they view this thread in 20 years time.

More pertinent would be if they are born HEALTHY.
People seem to think that a dead womans corpse will suffice as an incubator to bring a foetus to full gestation with no complications for the foetus.

At 30 weeks? Maybe
From 16 weeks?? I would be utterly amazed if there were no complications.

But even leaving that aside and saying that it was born healthy.
What then?
The grandparents have their hands full and already have the daughters older child to rear into their old age. And this is even without knowing their situation(they could be very aged, or ill or poor. We dont know)

So the child goes into care.
It will later in life find out the whole tale in all its gory details.
Will it thanks us for giving it(I use it as gender is unknown)life in care/foster homes?
Will it thanks us for the knowledge that it was the child who wasn't "taken" by the grandparents and wonder why they were not as loved as the sibling kept by them?
Will it thanks us for bringing it into the world where she would never know her mother?

I highly doubt it.

Don't be under the illusion that we would be saving this child for THIS CHILDS sakes.
We wouldn't be.
The pro life side would be saving a foetus for THEIR cause.
They wouldn't be saving a child though.
They would save the foetus at the risk of ruining the CHILDS life.
All to appeal to their own moral needs.

bogwalrus · 21-12-2014 12:28am

bodice ripper wrote: »

That's the one.

Bacteria are alive.

A Fetus will be a human if it is not one already. Bacteria will not be a human and a fetus is not bacteria.

Some massive difference there. A fetus has the right to have a future. And you disagree with that because?

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:33am

bjork wrote: »

I didn't "bemoan the trampling of his rights"?

But Spanish eyes did.

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:35am

bogwalrus wrote: »

A Fetus will be a human if it is not one already. Bacteria will not be a human and a fetus is not bacteria.

Some massive difference there. A fetus has the right to have a future. And you disagree with that because?

Sperm could be a human being. Given the right technology, any human cell could be. So what?

You can't prove something by just saying it over and over again.

bjork · 21-12-2014 12:46am

bodice ripper wrote: »

But Spanish eyes did.

Dead lady>grandparents>child>father

Have I got that order of Rights correct there?

Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

I don't think there is a need for it.

MrPudding · 21-12-2014 12:49am

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Baby at 17 weeks in the womb.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-17-weeks

Can hear and move all its joints.

Sorry, that is not a 17 week old baby, this is:

It even has a sign.

MrP

Smidge · 21-12-2014 12:53am

bjork wrote: »

Dead lady>grandparents>child>father

Have I got that order of Rights correct there?

Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

I don't think there is a need for it.

You seem to be arguing against you own point here.
The information came into the public domain and therefore its being discussed.
It was stated (by the news iirc)that the grandparents are currently caring for the womans child.
We dont know if the father of the child is the father of the foetus.
What we do know is that they were not married and therefore the grandparents in the eyes of the law are next of kin.

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 12:53am

bjork wrote: »

Dead lady>grandparents>child>father

Have I got that order of Rights correct there?

Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

I don't think there is a need for it.

I didn't do any of that, but thanks anyway. I believe there some conjecture from you about his situation first, I only pointed out there were other scenarios.

But please, go ape**** if it makes you happy.

bjork · 21-12-2014 12:55am

Smidge wrote: »

You seem to be arguing against you own point here.
The information came into the public domain and therefore its being discussed.
It was stated (by the news iirc)that the grandparents are currently caring for the womans child.
We dont know if the father of the child is the father of the foetus.
What we do know is that they were not married and therefore the grandparents in the eyes of the law are next of kin.

What news? Can you link it?

MrPudding · 21-12-2014 12:55am

bogwalrus wrote: »

Yes she is and has her child still growing in her that the parents are choosing to terminate by pulling the plug but are being prevented by medical professionals for some reason (i presume because they believe the child can survive).

I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

MrP

Smidge · 21-12-2014 12:57am

bjork wrote: »

What news? Can you link it?

I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)

bjork · 21-12-2014 1:00am

Smidge wrote: »

I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)

Yes, I've googled it on on no mainstream news source can I find this information. Surely you can link a source. Or is it gossip and rumours?

Should be so easy to link to.

Neyite · 21-12-2014 1:00am

bogwalrus wrote: »

Yes she is and has her child still growing in her that the parents are choosing to terminate by pulling the plug but are being prevented by medical professionals for some reason (i presume because they believe the child can survive).

The question is, is it right to pull the plug when there is a possibility this child will survive and if so what is the justification for doing so?

Medical experts have agreed that there is an extremely poor outcome for the baby as a best case scenario they expect severe health issues and abnormalities, that is if the pregnancy does not result in a miscarriage or stillbirth, or death shortly after birth. The outcome of a healthy baby is not expected.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Where is Dad?

UH, I forgot, he is not married to the woman, so has no rights at all in this matter.

That is not right IMV

He's been quoted in The Independent as being of the same mind as his partners parents and is supporting their high court bid. But you are correct, in this state it doesn't matter a jot what he thinks. Neither, it appears does it matter what the mother would have thought either. The 8th amendment says so.

ETA: sorry, I just re-read the article. It was the woman's father, not the father of the children. It was incorrectly linked on another forum.

bjork · 21-12-2014 1:07am

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-just-want-to-lay-my-poor-little-girl-to-rest-30851665.html

bogwalrus · 21-12-2014 1:18am

MrPudding wrote: »

I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

MrP

Well there it is so. No reason whatsoever to keep the woman on life support if the baby has no chance. But still the question stands on whether it would have been right if the child did have a significant chance.

bogwalrus · 21-12-2014 1:22am

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sperm could be a human being. Given the right technology, any human cell could be. So what?

You can't prove something by just saying it over and over again.

Sperm can't be a human being. I'm starting to think your just trolling now.

And what am I saying over and over. It's a discussion is it not? Leave the anger at the door and we can progress our discussion.

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 1:29am

bogwalrus wrote: »

Sperm can't be a human being. I'm starting to think your just trolling now.

And what am I saying over and over. It's a discussion is it not? Leave the anger at the door and we can progress our discussion.

I am not trolling. I dont believe potential to be a human being equals human being.

you just keep saying fetus has a right to life. You back it with little substance.

And I am always angry.

scottp68877 · 21-12-2014 4:47am

I may be wrong here but where on that article does it say that the woman is clinically dead? It says that she's on life support after a brain trauma but that's it?

Lingua Franca · 21-12-2014 5:47am

In that article? If you mean the one in the OP then nowhere. That was a breaking news story with no detail. In every other article since it has said she is confirmed as brain dead. If they turn the machines off she will expire. That's not up for debate.

cloudatlas · 21-12-2014 12:03pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

MrP

If it had a viable chance at life would it change your mind? The only moral case that is close to this paradigm is the surrogacy cases where financial coercion is judged to be an abuse of power over the rightful mothers claim but since the mother is absent and there is little financial incentive as the state will take responsibility for the child then there is little argument in that particular vein.

bjork · 21-12-2014 12:34pm

Smidge wrote: »

I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)

Still no link from a main stream news source?

As if this family haven't enough to content with without people making sh1t up and spreading it around the internet as fact. Gossipy curtain twitchers who need to add their spin on to the version of events.

MrPudding · 21-12-2014 2:50pm

cloudatlas wrote: »

If it had a viable chance at life would it change your mind?

No.

MrP

bogwalrus · 21-12-2014 3:25pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am not trolling. I dont believe potential to be a human being equals human being.

you just keep saying fetus has a right to life. You back it with little substance.

And I am always angry.

So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.

osarusan · 21-12-2014 3:37pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.

Dead mother doesn't qualify as a very good reason?

bodice ripper · 21-12-2014 3:53pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.

It may well have happened to me, who can be sure? But I was a thinking, feeling, sentient being when it happened, if it happened.

and if you are going to infringe on the rights of a human female who is actually here, you need a better argument than "prove why not".

Stark · 21-12-2014 4:13pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.

Had things gone differently in the past, my mother might never have met my father and I would never have been born. Would suck but there are infinitely more scenarios where a particular sperm/egg combo doesn't get the opportunity of life than does. What's important is that we respect the rights of people who do exist.

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Comments