• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brain-dead woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban, family says

She doesn’t have a husband - she has a boyfriend. He’s who took her to the hospital when she was struggling to breathe.

“I think every woman should have the right to make their own decision,” Newkirk told 11Alive. “And if not, then their partner or their parents
Click to expand...
In another article, it seems as though the parents and boyfriend are likely on the same page and it truly is the law in GA driving this - not the family (including the boyfriend)

A Mother Says Her Pregnant Daughter Is Being Kept Alive Due to an Abortion Ban—Even Though She’s Been Declared Brain Dead

“It’s torture.”
www.glamour.com

From same link:
 
Napoleon said:
“She” doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
So there is no reason, legal or otherwise, to keep her body on support.
Napoleon said:
The only thing that exists is a body that is critical to preserving another life.
Click to expand...
That other "life" is not a person or has any rights. It has no claim to the body it's inhabiting and parasitically feeding off.
Napoleon said:
Life is suffering.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good reason to pull the proverbial plug then! After all, we put down animals or withdraw care from those suffering and/or to prevent suffering.
 
Two excerpts from the OP's article:

“She’s pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born,” [April] Newkirk said. Newkirk has not commented on whether the family wants Smith removed from life support.

Georgia's law confers personhood on a fetus. Those who favor personhood say fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses should be considered people with the same rights as those already born.

Nasty ethical and legal issues in play. Will removing Adriana Smith from life support result in a homicide under Georgia law?
 
Along Came Jones said:
Nasty ethical and legal issues in play. Will removing Adriana Smith from life support result in a homicide under Georgia law?
Click to expand...
I have little doubt some might try to push for that.
 
That is some very twisted blood-lust.
 

If that’s accurate, and I’m not disputing it, then it’s bizarre and the poor woman should be allowed to pass peacefully as possible.

All the state has done after three months is make an issue that was never there when thus began about a child now possible to survive outside the womb and whose going to be responsible when this child arrives.
 
bomberfox said:
Its Terry Sciavo all over again except worse.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Some people are only concerned with quantity of life and couldn't care less about quality of life. This case is a perfect example of that and what happens when abortion restrictions are in place. It becomes a legal, ethical, and moral mess which wastes time, money, and resources and causes nothing but hardship and suffering, especially to those most closely involved.
 
Hopefully that boy gets to live with his father and not the grandmother.
 
Napoleon said:
I think the point of it is obvious. She doesn’t need her body anymore but her child does. Surely the pro-abortion movement hasn’t stooped so low as to claim that a female cadaver has more rights than a living unborn child, has it?
Click to expand...
She has a living child that’s not capable of grieving his mother’s death because her body is being kept artificially alive for 90+ days at this juncture - and still has another 10+ weeks of being kept in such a state for a fetus that may or may not even survive outside the womb and that has - according to the articles I’ve now read - extensive defects.

So…just so we make sure that your point here is clear:

You think that the state has the right to keep a woman’s body alive as an incubator against the wishes of her family - and then strap that family with the responsibility to care for a potentially significantly disabled child in addition to the child they’re already caring for?

That’s the position you want to take?
 
Taylor said:
Hopefully that boy gets to live with his father and not the grandmother.
Click to expand...
The living one or the fetus that is already known to have significant disabilities?

And what has you arriving at that conclusion?

Articles show the boyfriend and (presumed) father of the fetus is seemingly in agreement with the parents.

Unknown whether her living son has the same father, but it seems the grandparents/most recent boyfriend are raising that child also.

You think you know better for this family somehow?
 
Napoleon said:
You haven’t made any point except an irrational animus for the unborn child.
Click to expand...
What's irrational is "unborn child," as that is an oxymoron. But I'll take your inability to address or refute the points made and instead bring to make this about me as a sign of your surrender. Or utter failure. Sane difference really.
 
Napoleon said:
So wait a minute. Are you guys saying you want the child to perish for no reason other than the mother is brain dead? One of the great advancements of medical technology is that doesn’t have to happen anymore.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to pay to raise the child and pay for the medical bills to pay to keep the mother on life support?
 
ModernDiogenes said:
All the state has done after three months is make an issue that was never there when thus began about a child now possible to survive outside the womb and whose going to be responsible when this child arrives
Click to expand...
And that’s the kicker - when she died 90+ days ago - she should have simply been allowed to die.

Not kept “alive” by machines because of this law.

If the family (and boyfriend) wanted that? It would have been a different story. But they didn’t get to make a decision - and THAT is the crux of this.

The state took away their ability to make end of life decisions. At a time frame when the fetus was nowhere even CLOSE to gestational maturity.

This is just…gross.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Are you willing to pay to raise the child and pay for the medical bills to pay to keep the mother on life support?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But then, anti abortionists tend to ignore everything outside their tunnel vision of a fetus.
 

Why should the baby be killed?
 
Everyone should spend time, money and ressources on my possible wishes when I die. This is my choice for the rest of you to abide by.

It's crazy talk.
 
Atreus21 said:
Why should the baby be killed?
Click to expand...
Because it's not a baby. Because it's not a person. Because it has no rights or protections. Because the family wants to withdraw support. Because it may not survive anyway and be suffering if it does. All of the above. Take your pick!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…