more nanny state tales

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:04 pm

they cry bloody murder when bloomberg took away their supersized drinks, but bozos of the same ilk have no problem going against a family's wishes for their brain dead relative because it troubles their religious morality!

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3146331/texas-family-sue-life-support/

next time they utter the words nanny state, we'll have to ask them to STFU.

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:55 pm

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:15 am

Where does it say anywhere that it is do with religion? It's a legal issue, not religious. So I guess you can calm down.

What the doctors are doing does make sense. There's a life growing inside her and if they pull out her life support, they are killing the baby too and denying her/him a chance to come into this world. The fetus now must be 5-6 months old inside her now. At least a couple more months to go. Looks like the husband would rather lose the baby than foot the hospital bills.

by ashaNirasha Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:21 am

Kinnera wrote:

What the doctors are doing does make sense. There's a life growing inside her and if they pull out her life support, they are killing the baby too and denying her/him a chance to come into this world. The fetus now must be 5-6 months old inside her now. At least a couple more months to go. Looks like the husband would rather lose the baby than foot the hospital bills.

No, it doesn't make any sense. It would have made some sense if they did this in the third trimester, but at 14 weeks, barely at three and half months, it is unethical and cruel. They are doing this to cover their butts against some pro-life groups/ right wing nuts suing them citing that law the article mentions.

I've heard of stories where women go through catastrophic events or die, and have babies delivered, but those are more or less for 7 months to term fetuses, and mostly short heroic efforts to save the baby, and let the woman go. But to have a dead woman carry a fetus from 14 weeks to term is ridiculous. I wonder how they are going to deliver the baby, probably perform a C-section on the dead woman, and then dispose her off.

It would have made some sense if the husband wanted the baby. I can see a conflict in that situation, but now it seems like the dead woman's wishes have no role, the husband has no say, the fetus is the only one that has rights. It is similar to the personhood law that so many red states want to bring in.

I don't see anything wrong with the husband making practical, rational decisions. To have someone in the hospital for 6 months can cost hundreds and thousands of dollars, with the potential for personal ruin and bankruptcy. Don't people make decisions on whether they can afford a chid or not? Whether they want to have a child with genetic disorders or not? What kinds of problems will the fetus have growing inside a dead woman?

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:46 pm

Nirasha, fromwhat i understood from the article, it's a legal issue and the docs did what they did coz they thought they were following the law. It gets very tricky with such laws. No where does it say they were doing what they did coz of fear for the pro-life group/right wing nuts or because of religious reasons. I am neither a liberal nor a republican. I am an independent and from what i see, both the groups are real nuts, believing that only they are right and superior in their thinking than the other and try to create an opportunity to jump at the other. Very disgusting, i should say.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:12 pm

there were laws on the books that criminalized buggery. not very many of them were upheld except in the most religious of states.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there were laws on the books that criminalized buggery. not very many of them were upheld except in the most religious of states.

So? If upholding a law is considered wrong, then repeal the damn law. Blame the law, not the ones upholding it.

by Kris Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:50 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:
Kinnera wrote:

What the doctors are doing does make sense. There's a life growing inside her and if they pull out her life support, they are killing the baby too and denying her/him a chance to come into this world. The fetus now must be 5-6 months old inside her now. At least a couple more months to go. Looks like the husband would rather lose the baby than foot the hospital bills.
No, it doesn't make any sense. It would have made some sense if they did this in the third trimester, but at 14 weeks, barely at three and half months, it is unethical and cruel. They are doing this to cover their butts against some pro-life groups/ right wing nuts suing them citing that law the article mentions.

>>>>That may the gist of it, but can't blame them for not wanting to get into a legally vulnerable position. As Kinnera says in her post, unless the law is changed, they cannot be faulted.

by Sponsored content

more nanny state tales

more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales

Re: more nanny state tales