• 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

Gordy327 said:
Who cares. Your emotional qualms are your own. There's still no rational reason provided to continue support, especially against the wishes of the next of kin.
Click to expand...
Of course, her next of kin have not objected to keeping the baby alive, have they?
 
VanceMack said:
In the three years since RvW was overturned at the federal level, leftists have found THREE dead women they can drag around as a prop (ignoring the living babies developing inside of those women....women who chose NOT to kill their babies) to bemoan the federal decision, because they are really really really really mad that they cant kill this baby....meanwhile 2.4 MILLION babies have still been killed in the name of choice in that same time frame.

And you people will see that and think its the pro life people standing for the babies that are the evil scumbags.
Click to expand...
The hyperbole never ends with anti-abortionists, does it.
 
Gordy327 said:
Yes!
Click to expand...
Then the baby should have more rights.

Cool. Wouldn't want to violate the mother's rights, but if she's dead then we can protect a baby, and go on the wishes of other people who are alive, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Along Came Jones said:
For we spectators that is the unknown. Of the several accounts I've read or browsed, Adriana Smith's prior statements concerning "What if . . ." are either unknown or not reported. So, nobody out here in the cyber world knows what choice she might prefer.
Click to expand...

This is true. That's why my husband and I have DNRs, specific to various situations. Or it's part of why.

The other reason is, people ARE emotional. My mom had an aneurysm when she was only 50. So young. Her EEGs showed no conscious brain activity. I wanted so badly for them to keep her alive. I wanted her no matter how compromised should she ever wake up, and I was ready to move to her city and feed and change and aspirate her for decades if that's what it took.

My stepfather, though, knew she wouldn't want to live like that. As her immediate next of kin above her children he was legally able to make the decision, this wasn't Texas or another state where it could more easily have turned into a Schiavo case.

Now OTOH my sister and I knew what my FIL said was true and we all discussed it rationally and hugged and she was taken off life support about 24 hours after the anyeurism. I do feel in this GA case since she is incompetent the family should be able to make the decision but that's how *I feel,* not GA law.

Does it suck, yes, obviously. But this is what.voters want. God forbid -- and I mean that -- that a situation similar to this arose for them, they'll be pumped and sucked and brought back from cardiac events or further brain bleeds or kidney failure over and over again. That's why voting is important, and so is thinking, but none of this is up to me.

...

Now. I do know if I were told I my brain was dying and I was going to go into a coma and asked if I wanted to be kept physically alive so my child could go to term, I would have sad yes...if it were happening today. In my exact family situation. With my husband able to take care of the baby. Etc. Etc. Again...choice does NOT mean "abortion!!!!!! Now!" Choice...is...choice. Why is it so hard for conservatives to understand that?

And Dems and many Independents and many Republicans don't just fight for our own choice. We fight for it for others bc situations like this can and do happen.

But GA has its own rules so what can I say...they live with those consequences...no matter what form that "living" entails.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
But, obviously, she's not dead. If she were the baby would be dead too. If she were dead, there'd be no need to pull the plug.
Click to expand...
No, she is actually dead, and died three months ago. The ventilator forces circulation of the blood, but if I remember from the old Texas case back in 2014 or so, all sorts of other technological things have to be done to prevent natural decay processes, and they aren't as successful.

The reason the fetus survives is that they are artificially putting oxygen and nutrients into her blood and circulating the blood to the placenta/fetus. I suspect that the anti-bodies in her blood also benefit from the oxygen, so the placenta can transfer them, too.

But the woman certainly died. Brain stem death is what medical professionals use to determine actual death, because your heart can stop and you can recover from that, as in a heart attack. No one recovers from brain stem death. If they stopped keeping her corpse plugged into the ventilator, it would decay naturally,

At this point, the fetus wouldn't necessarily die, because they have kept her corpse incubating the fetus for about 14 weeks past her death. I think that, to date, about one third of fetuses kept incubating in corpses have been born alive, but they usually don't do this for such a long period or starting so much earlier than 20 weeks.

And this is only the second time I know of where the state law was used to force this treatment.

I assure you, she's been officially dead for three months.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Of course, her next of kin have not objected to keeping the baby alive, have they?
Click to expand...
The next of kin have not mentioned their position either way. But as next of kin, they should have legal say. I stead, the state is taking that away from them.
Metric Mouse said:
Then the baby should have more rights.
Click to expand...
Why?
Metric Mouse said:
Cool. Wouldn't want to violate the mother's rights, but if she's dead then we can protect a baby, and go on the wishes of other people I guess.
Click to expand...
There is no baby. Just a fetus. A fetus has no rights nor is a person per the Constitution and federal law.
 
Bonnot said:
abcnews.go.com

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

A hospital is using a breathing tube and other measures to keep a brain-dead Georgia woman's body functioning because she is pregnant
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

A hospital is using a breathing tube and other measures to keep a brain-dead Georgia woman's body functioning because she is pregnant
ATLANTA -- A pregnant woman in Georgia was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency and has been kept on life support for three months by doctors to allow enough time for the baby to be born and comply with Georgia’s strict anti-abortion law, family members say.

The GOP just views women as inccubators.
Click to expand...
She's brain-dead. Liberals wouldn't even view her as worthy of refrigeration.

Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Bonnot said:
Lets force a brain dead woman to give birth to a child that will grow up without a mother. Bang up job anti science religious extremists.

The GOP is all about forced birth, they're terrible people and extremists. Controlling someone's body like this even in their death is fascist as ****.
Click to expand...
 
Gordy327 said:
She's brain dead. That is as good as being declared legally dead. She's literally dead in the bed, as it were. So no reason to continue to support corpse.
Click to expand...

Well, except for one reason - to save the child's life.

Gordy327 said:
More hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Shrug. You guys started it.

Gordy327 said:
Who cares. Your emotional qualms are your own. There's still no rational reason provided to continue support, especially against the wishes of the next of kin.
Click to expand...

....except again to save the child's life.

Gordy327 said:
Not really. At only as far in the context of abortion. But it does not have full personhood that is conferred and recognized by the Constitution or federal law.
Click to expand...

Evidently you are mistaken. Otherwise this wouldn't have happened.

Gordy327 said:
since there is no child, there's no issue.
Click to expand...

Except there is. Do you what a pregnancy is? Do you know how children originate?
 
Metric Mouse said:
Letting a man decide for a woman is a wild argument. Also this story covered this, so tell us you didn't read the article without telling us you didn't read it...
Click to expand...

Reducing the concept of a second party in a loving relationship being placed in the legal position of having to make legal decisions about life and death for that person to, “Letting a man decide for a woman is a wild argument.”, is the wild argument. {polite grin}
 
Atreus21 said:
Well, except for one reason - to save the child's life.
Click to expand...
Except there is no child.
Atreus21 said:
Shrug. You guys started it.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's all you.
Atreus21 said:
....except again to save the child's life.
Click to expand...
Except again there is no child.
Atreus21 said:
Evidently you are mistaken. Otherwise this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The Constitution and federal law clearly defines personhood. The unborn do not qualify.
Atreus21 said:
Except there is. Do you what a pregnancy is? Do you know how children originate?
Click to expand...
Except there is not. children originate at birth and are legal persons with rights under the constitution and federal law. Before then, it's a fetus and has no personhood or rights.
 
Gordy327 said:
What's the point in keeping a brain dead person alive? Except maybe for organ harvesting?
Click to expand...
The real issue is that the living wills of brain dead pregnant women are ignored officially by law in several states in instances such as this.

And no one is keeping a person alive. When you are brain dead, your body is a corpse, not a person, and the corpse has no rights. The living will of the person who died has always had to be respected before.

This is all about the ghoulish anti-abortion people.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this particular situation chances are far better than not that she wanted a living baby to be the result of her pregnancy. She is PG and didn't seek an abortion.

I would have opted for horrible limbo in order for any of my children to survive, in the circumstances my family is in now. Very possibly not if I were in different circumstances.

This seems tough for some libs here as well as MAGAs to grasp: choice means choice. There isn't just one choice for any given woman in any given circumstance, much less for all women. Many other women would opt to be taken off life support immediately no matter what their family's circumstances, for example.

I'm in CA. I vote to try to make sure things like this don't happen. The most likely outcome for me here is that, being deemed incompetent, I wouldn't make the choice, my husband would. That in the final analysis is what *I feel* is the best, most compassionate answer but GA believes my feelings don't mean shit and knows I have zero leg to stand on fighting this woman's situation so here we are.
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
In this particular situation chances are far better than not that she wanted a living baby to be the result of her pregnancy. She is PG and didn't seek an abortion.

I would have opted for horrible limbo in order for any of my children to survive, in the circumstances my family is in now. Very possibly not if I were in different circumstances.

This seems tough for some libs here as well as MAGAs to grasp: choice means choice. There isn't just one choice for any given woman in any given circumstance, much less for all women. Many other women would opt to be taken off life support immediately no matter what their family's circumstances, for example.

I'm in CA. I vote to try to make sure things like this don't happen. The most likely outcome for me here is that, being deemed incompetent, I wouldn't make the choice, my husband would. That in the final analysis is what *I feel* is the best, most compassionate answer but TX believes my feelings don't mean shit and knows I have zero leg to stand on fighting this woman's situation so here we are.
Click to expand...

Oh cool, this person wants us to abide by the possible choices of braindead people.

Didn't take long too drop the mask, huh?

😁
 
VanceMack said:
In the three years since RvW was overturned at the federal level, leftists have found THREE dead women they can drag around as a prop (ignoring the living babies developing inside of those women....women who chose NOT to kill their babies) to bemoan the federal decision, because they are really really really really mad that they cant kill this baby....meanwhile 2.4 MILLION babies have still been killed in the name of choice in that same time frame.

And you people will see that and think its the pro life people standing for the babies that are the evil scumbags.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit, stop the caterwauling.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Missing information on this to form an opinion.

Where is the father and what is his view on this. Does he want this child? Are they married and he has closest relative legal rights of decision making on end of life?

Example: If the father of this child is involved, wants this child, and was within his legal rights not to pull the plug to allow their child to come to term, arguing this is something they both planned for and both wanted, this is an entirely different story.
Click to expand...
Let him pay the hospital and ventilator expenses. I recall reading that they cost at least $1500/day in 2008 or so and could cost $5000/day then or even $7500/day in 2014. Now? Assuming $10,000/day isn't outrageous in 2025, 90 days means it would already have cost $900,000. I think one article called this a million dollar baby.
 
The only reason we are here is Republican cruelty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom