Seriously. Getting played by TEXANS?
:lulz:
OH, IT'S SO HORRIBLE! THE BRAINDEAD WOMAN IS PREGNANT, AND THEY WON'T LET THE HUSBAND SHUT HER DOWN.
Because only the mother can declare whether a fetus is a baby or not. This is an attempt to set precedent that the general public can make that decision.
Buncha fucking maroons. Everyone get the fuck out of my century. Go back to 1950 or something. Damn.
Well, she's fucked off from the thread, leaving me with her 3 vacant pals. :tgrr:
I don't think I'll ever bother jumping in on one of her threads again.
Yeah, that does it.
I saw that. And yeah, it's horrible but you're right, the laws work according to "If this, then this." Even if the original "this" is really extenuating circumstances.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on January 13, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
I saw that. And yeah, it's horrible but you're right, the laws work according to "If this, then this." Even if the original "this" is really extenuating circumstances.
I wonder how long the religious right waited for this particular set of circumstances?
Probably since Roe v Wade.
??? I'm lost.
WTF, I had to go to work. Sorry.
I got played by the media, yes. Thanks. But like you pointed out, law is the law. However, that doesn't, and shouldn't stop people from shrugging it off and going, "C'est la vie, Texas" either.
Shit sucks, and I can whine aimlessly about it if I want to. Clearly, the family allowed the media to cover it, because they want the attention, they want to make their case known. And like my friend Raaven just posted, there's quite a few states that have this clause when it comes to a DNR on a pregnant woman. I'm failing to see why bringing attention to a particularly shitty loophole in a shitty law is such a bad thing?
Because Texans will almost certainly use it to build the foundations for the father saying whether the fetus is a child or not to have legal weight. And because this is Texas, it likely wont just apply when the women herself is unable to communicate that one way or another.
Quote from: Kaousuu's Krazy Khaki Kristmas Kookies on January 14, 2014, 03:27:01 AM
WTF, I had to go to work. Sorry.
Which explains the other 5 threads you started over the following hour.
QuoteI got played by the media, yes. Thanks. But like you pointed out, law is the law. However, that doesn't, and shouldn't stop people from shrugging it off and going, "C'est la vie, Texas" either.
No, you got played by the anti-abortion crowd. You and your pals spent a whole thread screaming that it isn't the woman's choice, it's the father's and/or society's.
QuoteShit sucks, and I can whine aimlessly about it if I want to. Clearly, the family allowed the media to cover it, because they want the attention, they want to make their case known.
I wonder why that is?
QuoteAnd like my friend Raaven just posted, there's quite a few states that have this clause when it comes to a DNR on a pregnant woman. I'm failing to see why bringing attention to a particularly shitty loophole in a shitty law is such a bad thing?
Your friend Raven is fucked in the head.
First, what kind of person wants their baby to die with them?
Second, who benefits from the decision EVER going to anyone but the mother?
Your friends are complete assgoblins.
Quote from: Cain on January 14, 2014, 08:36:40 AM
Because Texans will almost certainly use it to build the foundations for the father saying whether the fetus is a child or not to have legal weight. And because this is Texas, it likely wont just apply when the women herself is unable to communicate that one way or another.
I tried to explain this to Suu's pals, but they couldn't or wouldn't understand it in simple terms.
They think, and this is the funny bit, that it couldn't be that way because that would mean this particular baby dying and
they think the right to life movement is about saving babies.
Facebook has that effect on people. It's like constraining how many letters people can write somehow also constrains the blood flow to their brain, causing severe derpitude.
Gentlemen, can I interest you in my thesis "This is why twitter sucks"?
It's like what Cain said, only £5.99+Shipping+VAT+Expenses+Personalisation fee.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 14, 2014, 08:36:40 AM
Because Texans will almost certainly use it to build the foundations for the father saying whether the fetus is a child or not to have legal weight. And because this is Texas, it likely wont just apply when the women herself is unable to communicate that one way or another.
I tried to explain this to Suu's pals, but they couldn't or wouldn't understand it in simple terms.
They think, and this is the funny bit, that it couldn't be that way because that would mean this particular baby dying and they think the right to life movement is about saving babies.
Okay...NOW it makes sense.
For some reason when Roger's posts are being buried by others on Facebook it's hard to grasp his explanation. That and I'm not posting in between using tin snips to cut metal boning.
My issue, as I asked you in the thread, was that in such an isolated case as this, when the mother is absolutely unable to make the choice herself in a life-or-death situation, why the husband or grandparents are not granted power of attorney. But, now I can see how this would be totally exploited the fuck out of.
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
Quote from: Pixie on January 14, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
It's totally fucked.
Quote from: Pixie on January 14, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
I ask again: What kind of person says "I just lost my wife, I'd like to lose my child as well, please"?
This smells rotten. Vile.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 14, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
I ask again: What kind of person says "I just lost my wife, I'd like to lose my child as well, please"?
This smells rotten. Vile.
What kind of person says "Now that your wife is dead, we're going to use her body to finish incubating a fetus so that you can be a grieving single father with a newborn infant to raise on your own who will never know its mother because she died halfway through pregnancy"?
It's not a child. It's a fetus.
Let me put it this way; if the father died, leaving a pregnant widow behind at this stage of pregnancy, she would still be able to decide to abort if she was not up to becoming a parent in the aftermath of grief. The mother no longer exists, and the next of kin is not being allowed to make a decision on whether he wants to embark on something which quite honestly is horrifying; a dead woman's body being used for the next five months as a baby incubator for a fetus which is not yet viable outside of the womb.
I'm not sure I buy into the line of reasoning that says this is an attempted end-around of Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I'm not sure the people who could conceivably use it in that fashion are smart enough to realize that opportunity even exists.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 14, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
I ask again: What kind of person says "I just lost my wife, I'd like to lose my child as well, please"?
This smells rotten. Vile.
What kind of person says "Now that your wife is dead, we're going to use her body to finish incubating a fetus so that you can be a grieving single father with a newborn infant to raise on your own who will never know its mother because she died halfway through pregnancy"?
It's not a child. It's a fetus.
Let me put it this way; if the father died, leaving a pregnant widow behind at this stage of pregnancy, she would still be able to decide to abort if she was not up to becoming a parent in the aftermath of grief. The mother no longer exists, and the next of kin is not being allowed to make a decision on whether he wants to embark on something which quite honestly is horrifying; a dead woman's body being used for the next five months as a baby incubator for a fetus which is not yet viable outside of the womb.
As a point of law, the only person who decides if it's a "fetus" or a "baby" is the mother.
The push behind this media frenzy is to allow that decision to pass into the hands of others.
It's Texas. They've probably been waiting for years for this situation - or one similar - to occur.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 14, 2014, 08:17:11 PM
I'm not sure I buy into the line of reasoning that says this is an attempted end-around of Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I'm not sure the people who could conceivably use it in that fashion are smart enough to realize that opportunity even exists.
Don't confuse "evil" with "stupid". Texas has lots of both, and though both conditions often occur in the same person, this is not always the case.
I'm sure most of them are too stupid to recognise such an opportunity.
But it only takes one to recognise, and then spread that understanding to the others.
Quote from: Cain on January 14, 2014, 09:02:00 PM
I'm sure most of them are too stupid to recognise such an opportunity.
But it only takes one to recognise, and then spread that understanding to the others.
I think the law in question was written with a situation like this in mind. The anti-abortion crowd may be loud, but they are also smarter than they are given credit for, and able to plan things long term.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 08:56:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 14, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
poor family can't grieve properly until they have a new baby.. which is stressful in itself.
it's kind of fucked.
I ask again: What kind of person says "I just lost my wife, I'd like to lose my child as well, please"?
This smells rotten. Vile.
What kind of person says "Now that your wife is dead, we're going to use her body to finish incubating a fetus so that you can be a grieving single father with a newborn infant to raise on your own who will never know its mother because she died halfway through pregnancy"?
It's not a child. It's a fetus.
Let me put it this way; if the father died, leaving a pregnant widow behind at this stage of pregnancy, she would still be able to decide to abort if she was not up to becoming a parent in the aftermath of grief. The mother no longer exists, and the next of kin is not being allowed to make a decision on whether he wants to embark on something which quite honestly is horrifying; a dead woman's body being used for the next five months as a baby incubator for a fetus which is not yet viable outside of the womb.
As a point of law, the only person who decides if it's a "fetus" or a "baby" is the mother.
The push behind this media frenzy is to allow that decision to pass into the hands of others.
It's Texas. They've probably been waiting for years for this situation - or one similar - to occur.
So now the hospital gets to decide, and not the next of kin?
Of course, that's irrelevant to the "what kind of person?" question.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
So now the hospital gets to decide, and not the next of kin?
Nobody gets to decide. The default position is that the pregnancy continues.
Texas wrote a law that managed to drive a huge wedge between choicers. There is no good answer to this, and that's no accident.
They are now waiting for the right of choice people to say that the dad has the say.
At that point, they all start cheering, and arrange new and shinier legislation, stating that the father has a say in all kinds of different situations. And a woman's reproductive freedom, at least in Texas, would now be in the hands of the father.
Paranoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
Also, they're kind of hoping for the "viability" argument, if you think about it.
That opens up another whole can of worms.
QuoteParanoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
I'd guess you're on the money here. Long term there's all kinds of shit that could get drafted in and shoved through with fuck all oversight under the guise of "equal rights for fathers". They've found their inch so this will get run to the ground. No single father left behind initatives, tax breaks for having control of kids, making sure all the existing legislation is "fair" to protect all these shiny new rights..... thar be a clusterfuck off to the south cap'n.
Want to be on which other states shove similar kind of laws through if this flies? I bet it'll be a few.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 14, 2014, 09:22:24 PM
QuoteParanoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
I'd guess you're on the money here. Long term there's all kinds of shit that could get drafted in and shoved through with fuck all oversight under the guise of "equal rights for fathers". They've found their inch so this will get run to the ground. No single father left behind initatives, tax breaks for having control of kids, making sure all the existing legislation is "fair" to protect all these shiny new rights..... thar be a clusterfuck off to the south cap'n.
Want to be on which other states shove similar kind of laws through if this flies? I bet it'll be a few.
Actually, if the law flies, then it's just a propaganda win for the anti-abortion crowd. If the law gets defeated or stayed in court, then the hilarity begins.
The fundamental problem faced by pro-choice folks here is that they too often forget that the anti-abortionists aren't interested in the fate of one (or any number) child. They are interested in control.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 09:14:56 PM
Also, they're kind of hoping for the "viability" argument, if you think about it.
That opens up another whole can of worms.
That, actually, sounds like the more likely angle to me. And yeah, the implications of THAT one are scary.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 09:11:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
So now the hospital gets to decide, and not the next of kin?
Nobody gets to decide. The default position is that the pregnancy continues.
Texas wrote a law that managed to drive a huge wedge between choicers. There is no good answer to this, and that's no accident.
They are now waiting for the right of choice people to say that the dad has the say.
At that point, they all start cheering, and arrange new and shinier legislation, stating that the father has a say in all kinds of different situations. And a woman's reproductive freedom, at least in Texas, would now be in the hands of the father.
Paranoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
You could be right. But ultimately, the father is the next of kin both for the dead mother, and for the fetus, and should have the legal right to decide on life support for BOTH of them,
if the fetus if going to be treated as a legal entity. That is completely aside from right to life issues.
I think the disconnect that I'm having here isn't about the women's rights laws that texas might potentially impose but that this issue in particular is a familial one. This father isn't considering the legislative implications but his own selfish ones. I don't think i'd consider him vile. If I was in his position, I honestly have no idea what I'd do. I hope that doesn't' make me vile.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 10:04:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 09:11:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
So now the hospital gets to decide, and not the next of kin?
Nobody gets to decide. The default position is that the pregnancy continues.
Texas wrote a law that managed to drive a huge wedge between choicers. There is no good answer to this, and that's no accident.
They are now waiting for the right of choice people to say that the dad has the say.
At that point, they all start cheering, and arrange new and shinier legislation, stating that the father has a say in all kinds of different situations. And a woman's reproductive freedom, at least in Texas, would now be in the hands of the father.
Paranoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
You could be right. But ultimately, the father is the next of kin both for the dead mother, and for the fetus, and should have the legal right to decide on life support for BOTH of them, if the fetus if going to be treated as a legal entity. That is completely aside from right to life issues.
From an ethical standpoint, you are correct. If the kid had been born and the mother and the kid were in this condition, the father would of course have the right to make the decisions.
But that's not how this case will be interpreted. The far right may be becoming less relevant as time goes on, but it doesn't mean they don't have a few nasty tricks up their sleeves. At the VERY least, the father's say-so and the viability issue could go full retard in the court system.
Guy doesn't want his SO to have an abortion because she is less likely to leave him if there's a kid. Guy uses open court case from above to get a "stay" that will of course last longer than the pregnancy itself.
Or whackjobs try to stop abortions at the very fringe of viability, using the viability argument from the above case.
I think "ethically, you're right" is really all that matters. Acting unethically because you're worried about how someone else may then act is, well, unethical.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 10:25:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 10:04:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 09:11:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
So now the hospital gets to decide, and not the next of kin?
Nobody gets to decide. The default position is that the pregnancy continues.
Texas wrote a law that managed to drive a huge wedge between choicers. There is no good answer to this, and that's no accident.
They are now waiting for the right of choice people to say that the dad has the say.
At that point, they all start cheering, and arrange new and shinier legislation, stating that the father has a say in all kinds of different situations. And a woman's reproductive freedom, at least in Texas, would now be in the hands of the father.
Paranoid? Maybe, but I doubt it. I lived there for years, this is how they get shit done. And any time you want to think of Texans as hicks, just remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was Texan. This is not above their capabilities.
You could be right. But ultimately, the father is the next of kin both for the dead mother, and for the fetus, and should have the legal right to decide on life support for BOTH of them, if the fetus if going to be treated as a legal entity. That is completely aside from right to life issues.
From an ethical standpoint, you are correct. If the kid had been born and the mother and the kid were in this condition, the father would of course have the right to make the decisions.
But that's not how this case will be interpreted. The far right may be becoming less relevant as time goes on, but it doesn't mean they don't have a few nasty tricks up their sleeves. At the VERY least, the father's say-so and the viability issue could go full retard in the court system.
Guy doesn't want his SO to have an abortion because she is less likely to leave him if there's a kid. Guy uses open court case from above to get a "stay" that will of course last longer than the pregnancy itself.
Or whackjobs try to stop abortions at the very fringe of viability, using the viability argument from the above case.
Legally, the viability issue and the next-of-kin issue are inextricably tangled. If the fetus is a person, its mother is dead and its father is the next of kin and has the right to make medical decisions. If the fetus is not a person, its existence is irrelevant to the question of whether the mother stays on life support.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 14, 2014, 10:28:49 PM
I think "ethically, you're right" is really all that matters. Acting unethically because you're worried about how someone else may then act is, well, unethical.
Sometimes you just have to roll around in the gutter.
Allowing reactionary freaks to lead you around by your ethics isn't a win. It's getting swindled by Texas. I see less harm in allowing the pregnancy to continue that I do in doing precisely what my opponents want.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 10:30:13 PM
Legally, the viability issue and the next-of-kin issue are inextricably tangled. If the fetus is a person, its mother is dead and its father is the next of kin and has the right to make medical decisions. If the fetus is not a person, its existence is irrelevant to the question of whether the mother stays on life support.
But the sticking point here is that the only person allowed to choose which it is, is the mother, who isn't available.
The moment we decide as a society that someone else can make that determination, then the wedge is driven in.
My thought/fear is that we don't know if the fetus was irreparably damaged from lack of oxygen in this case?
As mom wasn't found for about an hour.
Thinking... "Congrats, sir, here's your vegetable."
I could see why the husband/dad wouldn't want to continue a pregnancy in a case where ending up with a viable, but catastrophically brain-damaged child is a big possibility.
Me and girlfriendo were discussing this-if it was our partner who was in this situation, and our potential kid? Neither of us knew what we'd do...
But I'd rather keep it a private decision than make it the purview of the state...
Tangentially related...
Since the new restrictions on clinics here have gone into effect, women down in the Valley are DIY aborting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/looking-to-mexico-for-an-alternative-to-the-abortion-clinic.html
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 14, 2014, 10:32:44 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 14, 2014, 10:30:13 PM
Legally, the viability issue and the next-of-kin issue are inextricably tangled. If the fetus is a person, its mother is dead and its father is the next of kin and has the right to make medical decisions. If the fetus is not a person, its existence is irrelevant to the question of whether the mother stays on life support.
But the sticking point here is that the only person allowed to choose which it is, is the mother, who isn't available.
The moment we decide as a society that someone else can make that determination, then the wedge is driven in.
No, you are completely missing my point. If the fetus had been a month farther along, they would have C-sectioned it already. Viability is a crucial element in the question of whether, after the death of the mother, the fetus is a human being for which the father is next-of-kin, or not. Right now, in a sense, the fetus is on life support by proxy. The crucial question, legally, is whether it can be declared a person. According current laws, it cannot.
This is a very important subject, and one where emotions may rise very high.
It is important to think before having an opinion on subjects as sensitive as this.
Therefore i say: Kill them all.
When did Texas ever have anything to do with "ethics"? */rhetorical*
I think you guys are missing my point, which is that acting in a morally objectionable manner in the name of the "greater good" is a slippery slope, the bottom of which history has shown time and time again.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 15, 2014, 05:36:49 AM
I think you guys are missing my point, which is that acting in a morally objectionable manner in the name of the "greater good" is a slippery slope, the bottom of which history has shown time and time again.
Agreed.
I still stand behind my solution though.
Whenever someone poses an unsolvable problem like this there can be only one sane response: Prevent them from doing that to you again.
Violence is not unethical if it is in selfdefense.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 15, 2014, 05:36:49 AM
I think you guys are missing my point, which is that acting in a morally objectionable manner in the name of the "greater good" is a slippery slope, the bottom of which history has shown time and time again.
It's called Objectivism.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 15, 2014, 05:36:49 AM
I think you guys are missing my point, which is that acting in a morally objectionable manner in the name of the "greater good" is a slippery slope, the bottom of which history has shown time and time again.
You make an excellent point. On one hand, you are unquestionably correct. On the other hand, Texas.
I have to think about this. I have never made it a secret that in some cases, my hate trumps everything else.
By the time things get anywhere NEAR the Texas legislature, they've lost subtleties like "mom is brain dead, had a horror of life support and left a living will expressly stating that she did not want to be kept "alive", and fetus was without oxygen for an hour, so this is an exceptional case and whatever is decided here should not be applied to women with brain function." Instead, it becomes "HOW CAN WE USE THIS TO FUCK PEOPLE OVER?"
Throwing this one to the wolves for the greater good IS unethical. But I'm not sure it's always possible to deal with garbage like Texas pols without getting some on you. :x
I haven't been following this story so I wasn't even aware of the oxygen deprivation aspect until Roger mentioned it to me yesterday. That makes it all the more horrific that the hospital wants to use this woman's corpse as an incubator to gestate a fetus that has suffered so much brain damage that it won't be able to survive without life support after it's born. WTF. Hey guy, your wife is dead so what we were thinking was forcing her body to carry your baby to term so you can watch it die too. Cool?
It's awful, the whole thing. :sad:
I have no idea how to paste with this damn thing.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43736
Oh here.
Hopefully the end result of this is that the life support when pregnant law will be struck down. It's a terrible law.
She was only 14 weeks along when she died. Under the law, even if she hasn't known she was pregnant yet, if she was only two weeks, if they discovered it when she was in the hospital they would have kept her on life support. That's so fucked up. It has nothing to do with making it the father's choice, that's a red herring.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 15, 2014, 11:19:31 PM
She was only 14 weeks along when she died. Under the law, even if she hasn't known she was pregnant yet, if she was only two weeks, if they discovered it when she was in the hospital they would have kept her on life support. That's so fucked up. It has nothing to do with making it the father's choice, that's a red herring.
I just wish that this reverence for human life extended beyond the womb.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 15, 2014, 11:09:08 PM
I haven't been following this story so I wasn't even aware of the oxygen deprivation aspect until Roger mentioned it to me yesterday. That makes it all the more horrific that the hospital wants to use this woman's corpse as an incubator to gestate a fetus that has suffered so much brain damage that it won't be able to survive without life support after it's born. WTF. Hey guy, your wife is dead so what we were thinking was forcing her body to carry your baby to term so you can watch it die too. Cool?
And, you know, send him the bills for it afterwards. This is really the gift that keeps on giving.
TWO WEEKS?
Ah, context. I've had a couple of two week old kids. It's fucking horrifying and traumatic, but they weren't goddamn BABIES.
2 weeks? How did they even see it?
Also, the brain damage thing, alongside ECH's point, has sold me.
Nigel was just making a comparison. She was 14 weeks pregnant when she died, and has been like this now for 6 weeks, I believe. Even at 20 weeks I don't believe a child is viable outside of the womb, especially if it actually has a working brain at all.
Quote from: The Suu on January 16, 2014, 03:34:19 AM
Nigel was just making a comparison. She was 14 weeks pregnant when she died, and has been like this now for 6 weeks, I believe. Even at 20 weeks I don't believe a child is viable outside of the womb, especially if it actually has a working brain at all.
IIRC, the most premature infant to have survived so far was born at 26 weeks. Survival's far more likely with 30 weeks of gestation.
*mutters something about catastrophic fetal anencephaly *.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 16, 2014, 02:45:10 AM
2 weeks? How did they even see it?
Also, the brain damage thing, alongside ECH's point, has sold me.
I'm saying that the law doesn't allow for a pregnant woman to be removed from life support at any stage. At two weeks pregnancy can be detected by blood or urine test.
It's not like a woman is showing at 14 weeks, so they had to have either told the hospital, or the hospital ran a pregnancy test, which is standard procedure for any female admitted to a hospital.
This whole thing was off from the start.
The first report I saw was the father making statements about his wife's DNR and how she'd been oxygen deprived for an undetermined amount of time and so the baby was probably already brain-dead as well. But the hospital wouldn't remove her from life support.
Then I heard the wife didn't actually HAVE a DNR, they'd just 'talked about it a lot'.
Then I heard that there HAD been a DNR, it just 'got lost in the paperwork shuffle'.
So now I'm not sure what the hell is going on except there's a corpse being used as an easy bake oven for a zombie-meat cupcake.
The law is fucked up. That's the only clear thing I've got. It also makes me want to get my uterus yanked and have a DNR established yesterday.
Yeah. Uterus-as-a-club-for-Texas-legislators-to-beat-the-fuck-out-of-people-with does sound like something that has to go. :x
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on January 16, 2014, 05:30:48 PM
The law is fucked up. That's the only clear thing I've got. It also makes me want to get my uterus yanked and have a DNR established yesterday.
DNR orders, I understand, are hard to get enforced.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barron-h-lerner/resucitation_b_1322675.html
...I dunno, though.
That article talks about giving
physicians more authority to decide when and when not to resuscitate, which I'm not thinking is a good idea either.
Advocating for a DNR for a given patient is one thing, applying a DNR against patient wishes is another entirely...and I wonder at what point the person's insurance coverage comes into the picture in all that?
Prolly right up front.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on January 16, 2014, 05:30:48 PM
This whole thing was off from the start.
The first report I saw was the father making statements about his wife's DNR and how she'd been oxygen deprived for an undetermined amount of time and so the baby was probably already brain-dead as well. But the hospital wouldn't remove her from life support.
Then I heard the wife didn't actually HAVE a DNR, they'd just 'talked about it a lot'.
Then I heard that there HAD been a DNR, it just 'got lost in the paperwork shuffle'.
So now I'm not sure what the hell is going on except there's a corpse being used as an easy bake oven for a zombie-meat cupcake.
The law is fucked up. That's the only clear thing I've got. It also makes me want to get my uterus yanked and have a DNR established yesterday.
The article I linked said that there was one, but it hadn't been updated since she became pregnant.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorneys-brain-dead-womans-fetus-abnormal-21630077
Quote"According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal," the attorneys said. "Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined."
The attorneys said the fetus also has fluid building up inside the skull and possibly has a heart problem.
*sigh*
Quote from: The Suu on January 23, 2014, 05:25:56 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorneys-brain-dead-womans-fetus-abnormal-21630077
Quote"According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal," the attorneys said. "Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined."
The attorneys said the fetus also has fluid building up inside the skull and possibly has a heart problem.
*sigh*
:cpd:
Quote from: The Suu on January 23, 2014, 05:25:56 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorneys-brain-dead-womans-fetus-abnormal-21630077
Quote"According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal," the attorneys said. "Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined."
The attorneys said the fetus also has fluid building up inside the skull and possibly has a heart problem.
*sigh*
... :sad: Fuck.
Just for clarity, I wanted to mention that when we talk about viability in a fetus, it refers to the ability of the fetus to be born and survive. This is different from viability of a pregnancy, which is ability of the pregnancy to be carried to term.
Okay, based both on new information and also on re-examination of what I had been thinking earlier, I am going to say I was wrong about this situation.
My principle objection was that the idea of anyone other than a pregnant woman making the decision (as to whether or not a fetus is a baby or a mass of cells) is repugnant, as it opens the door to that decision being taken from her in other situations. However, it now occurs to me that the decision has already been taken from her by the state, given that they refused to allow the DNR, thus making the decision as the state that the fetus was a baby.
My secondary objection, and probably the one I am still most concerned about, is the pro-choice crowd bringing up the term "viability", since that is something the anti-abortion people have been trying to get a wedge into for years...ie, once viability is allowed to become an issue, it will be used to attack the availability of abortions in any cases that could even be MAYBE "viable". "Late term abortions", etc, which are exceedingly rare and which only occur when necessary. However, in this particular case, it appears the baby isn't viable by ANY definition, and all that is left is a horror show.
No exaggeration, there. Hammer couldn't produce a nightmare like this, even if he'd had access to modern drugs. Here's this guy, with a zombie wife that can't be allowed to die because the corpse is producing a mutated, zombie baby that will probably be stillborn and has precisely zero chance to survive even if it isn't. It's like the heroine's death scene in a movie, only it lasts 5 months.
I am not, however, going back on the title, because even if I was wrong, the two people I spoke to in Suu's thread are still in fact retards based on their arguments. It's just that I was retarded, too.
While the particulars may have been incorrect, I think your instincts were spot on.
Texas will find a way to do ALL KINDS OF FUCKED UP SHIT WITH THIS.
Well, if Pathfinder has taught me anything, its that this baby, if it''s born and survives, will be a level one Sorceror with the Undead bloodline. Eris help us all :(
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 24, 2014, 02:12:24 PM
Okay, based both on new information and also on re-examination of what I had been thinking earlier, I am going to say I was wrong about this situation.(1!)
My principle objection(2!) was that the idea of anyone other than a pregnant woman making the decision (as to whether or not a fetus is a baby or a mass of cells) is repugnant, as it opens the door to that decision being taken from her in other situations. However, it now occurs to me that the decision has already been taken from her by the state, given that they refused to allow the DNR, thus making the decision as the state that the fetus was a baby.
My secondary objection, and probably the one I am still most concerned about, is the pro-choice crowd bringing up the term "viability", since that is something the anti-abortion people have been trying to get a wedge into for years...ie, once viability is allowed to become an issue, it will be used to attack the availability of abortions in any cases that could even be MAYBE "viable". "Late term abortions", etc, which are exceedingly rare and which only occur when necessary. However, in this particular case, it appears the baby isn't viable by ANY definition, and all that is left is a horror show.(3!)
No exaggeration, there. Hammer couldn't produce a nightmare like this, even if he'd had access to modern drugs. Here's this guy, with a zombie wife that can't be allowed to die because the corpse is producing a mutated, zombie baby that will probably be stillborn and has precisely zero chance to survive even if it isn't. It's like the heroine's death scene in a movie, only it lasts 5 months.
I am not, however, going back on the title, because even if I was wrong, the two people I spoke to in Suu's thread are still in fact retards based on their arguments.(4!) It's just that I was retarded, too.(5!)
PEOPLE.
We are going to take a minute and observe what Roger has shown us here. He is A Holy Man, and I shall make these points for the ages to remind you fucking clowns how to use the lump of fat above your neck. Ask yourselves, How many things has Roger done right here? Lets count!
1 - Roger has thought about a situation and not ran off under the blanket to huff farts. Additionally, Roger has gathered new information which caused further re-assessment. Roger is an advanced pupil so these are often two separate longer steps involving much "What the fuck" and "Why the fuck" with added "Who the fuck". Roger has developed sophisticated research skills to aid him in this endeavour, such as Google and Wikipedia. These skills can take decades to master which is why only the internet elite actually know anything at all because we've been using it prior to it's creation. That's an advantage you'll never have, it's just one of the benefits of living in eternal Tucson.
2 - Roger has identified the main source of his concerns and made it clear this is not his only concern on a multifaceted issue. This demonstrates understanding of nuance and reason.
3 - In finishing his secondary objection, Roger here acknowledges and anticipates likely consequences. This leaves Roger open to further information to reassess his opinion on further similar situations.
4 - While aspects of Rogers opinion have changed, his initial opinion and reasons have not. This is also perfectly valid. Thinking about something does not automatically mandate a change in stance, nor, necessarily will new information warrant it either. This is HIGHLY MOTHERFUCKING ADVANCED and you better be damn sure you're right.
5 - Most importantly, Roger has understood he may have been incorrect and acting ookishly. This is how we tell the people who can actually walk upright and think. Take note.
That is all.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 24, 2014, 02:12:24 PM
However, it now occurs to me that the decision has already been taken from her by the state, given that they refused to allow the DNR, thus making the decision as the state that the fetus was a baby.
Precisely so, and this is very scary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25889728
QuoteA Texas judge has ordered a hospital to remove the life support of a brain-dead woman being kept alive because she is pregnant.
Judge RH Wallace gave John Peter Smith Hospital until Monday evening to cease life-saving measures for Marlise Munoz.
Mrs Munoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant when she fell unconscious in November. It is believed she had a blood clot.
The hospital had argued that a state law prohibits denying life-saving treatment to pregnant patients.
'Legally dead'
Mrs Munoz's husband, Erick, filed suit against the hospital on 14 January, arguing that life-support efforts go against her wishes as a paramedic familiar with end-of-life issues.
"Marlise Munoz is legally dead, and to further conduct surgical procedures on a deceased body is nothing short of outrageous," he claimed in court documents.
The court filing also stipulated that, as Mrs Munoz is technically deceased, "she cannot possibly be a 'pregnant patient'" under Texas health and safety codes.
Mrs Munoz, 33, has remained unconscious since her husband discovered her on the kitchen floor on 26 November while pregnant with the couple's second child.
A blood clot has been listed as a possible cause.
Mr Munoz's lawyers subsequently revealed that Mrs Munoz's foetus - believed to be at 22 weeks gestation and to have been without oxygen for some time before medical intervention in November - was "distinctly abnormal", according to hospital medical records.
On Friday, Judge Wallace ruled the Fort Worth hospital must remove Mrs Munoz's life support by 17:00 local time (23:00 GMT) on Monday.
Let's hope some jackass doesn't make some sort of emergency legal appeal.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on January 25, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25889728
QuoteA Texas judge has ordered a hospital to remove the life support of a brain-dead woman being kept alive because she is pregnant.
Judge RH Wallace gave John Peter Smith Hospital until Monday evening to cease life-saving measures for Marlise Munoz.
Mrs Munoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant when she fell unconscious in November. It is believed she had a blood clot.
The hospital had argued that a state law prohibits denying life-saving treatment to pregnant patients.
'Legally dead'
Mrs Munoz's husband, Erick, filed suit against the hospital on 14 January, arguing that life-support efforts go against her wishes as a paramedic familiar with end-of-life issues.
"Marlise Munoz is legally dead, and to further conduct surgical procedures on a deceased body is nothing short of outrageous," he claimed in court documents.
The court filing also stipulated that, as Mrs Munoz is technically deceased, "she cannot possibly be a 'pregnant patient'" under Texas health and safety codes.
Mrs Munoz, 33, has remained unconscious since her husband discovered her on the kitchen floor on 26 November while pregnant with the couple's second child.
A blood clot has been listed as a possible cause.
Mr Munoz's lawyers subsequently revealed that Mrs Munoz's foetus - believed to be at 22 weeks gestation and to have been without oxygen for some time before medical intervention in November - was "distinctly abnormal", according to hospital medical records.
On Friday, Judge Wallace ruled the Fort Worth hospital must remove Mrs Munoz's life support by 17:00 local time (23:00 GMT) on Monday.
Let's hope some jackass doesn't make some sort of emergency legal appeal.
The way that's worded, they can do it NOW before some jackass does exactly that.
Sanity prevails.
So like....basically...it was all because a hospital was freaked the fuck out about getting a lawsuit and doing everything by the book. Isn't there a sort of regular habit of hospitals and medical facilities getting plagued with lawsuits for iatrogenesis? I kind of can't really blame them, really.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on January 26, 2014, 04:26:40 AM
So like....basically...it was all because a hospital was freaked the fuck out about getting a lawsuit and doing everything by the book. Isn't there a sort of regular habit of hospitals and medical facilities getting plagued with lawsuits for iatrogenesis? I kind of can't really blame them, really.
No. No, it wasn't because of that. :x :x :x
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/marlise-munoz-s-life-support-removal-order-mulled-by-hospital-1.2511425
Burns: It's hard to explain Texas. There's just no words that convey how fucked up it is here, you have to spend some time here interacting with the stupid motherfuckers.
OHh.... my bad...i had a temporary bout of faith in humanity....it's passed.
They took her off the ventilator this morning
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html)
Whew.
That month of pointless horror served no purpose except to prove that a pro-lifer will try to incubate a fetus in a corpse.
Anyone that has willingly exposed themselves to the Facebook Virus is a retard. GAME OVER
Quote from: Delcon on January 26, 2014, 10:36:52 PM
Anyone that has willingly exposed themselves to the Facebook Virus is a retard. GAME OVER
It's hard to be mad at you for anything when your avatar is that adorable.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on January 26, 2014, 10:28:47 PM
Whew.
That month of pointless horror served no purpose except to prove that a pro-lifer will try to incubate a fetus in a corpse.
If you could call it a fetus, from what I hear the thing was not viable, and severely deformed. :(
and a possible necromancer
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 28, 2014, 03:53:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 28, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 03:27:47 AM
and a possible necromancer
wat
I think it's a reference to a story.
Was i the only one who didn't think that being incubated in a dead body was the perfect backstory for a dark wizard and/or the Antichrist? Seriously, who here is not writing that horror movie yet?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 28, 2014, 03:53:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 28, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 03:27:47 AM
and a possible necromancer
wat
I think it's a reference to a story.
Was i the only one who didn't think that being incubated in a dead body was the perfect backstory for a dark wizard and/or the Antichrist? Seriously, who here is not writing that horror movie yet?
I was too busy being upset about the whole thing, I guess.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 28, 2014, 03:53:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 28, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 03:27:47 AM
and a possible necromancer
wat
I think it's a reference to a story.
Was i the only one who didn't think that being incubated in a dead body was the perfect backstory for a dark wizard and/or the Antichrist? Seriously, who here is not writing that horror movie yet?
If they were making it, they probably shelved it now that this happened.
Hollywood is no fun anymore.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 28, 2014, 03:53:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 28, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 28, 2014, 03:27:47 AM
and a possible necromancer
wat
I think it's a reference to a story.
Was i the only one who didn't think that being incubated in a dead body was the perfect backstory for a dark wizard and/or the Antichrist? Seriously, who here is not writing that horror movie yet?
Yeah, uh. No.
Yeah, that's not funny because it offends our delicate sensibilities.
Oh, wait.
yeah, it was funny. :lulz:
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 28, 2014, 05:08:15 PM
Yeah, that's not funny because it offends our delicate sensibilities.
Oh, wait.
yeah, it was funny. :lulz:
I honestly didn't get what he was saying. It seemed like a nonsequitor.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 28, 2014, 05:34:53 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 28, 2014, 05:08:15 PM
Yeah, that's not funny because it offends our delicate sensibilities.
Oh, wait.
yeah, it was funny. :lulz:
I honestly didn't get what he was saying. It seemed like a nonsequitor.
I guess once he explained it, it seemed better, but I'm just not really finding the humor in this. I'm not say, terribly offended at the thought, but, eh. I guess it just didn't hit my funny bone.
To be fair the original joke required some knowledge about Pathfiner rules, see here(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline)) It's funny to the kind of RP nerd who sees things in the real world and immediately tries to stat it, which, occasionally, I am.
I didn't want to come right out and explain it, cuz nothing kills a joke quite like explaining it. As for why I was making light of the story.... isn't that what we do here? take seriousness humorously and soforth?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on January 29, 2014, 05:57:50 AM
To be fair the original joke required some knowledge about Pathfiner rules, see here(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline)) It's funny to the kind of RP nerd who sees things in the real world and immediately tries to stat it, which, occasionally, I am.
I didn't want to come right out and explain it, cuz nothing kills a joke quite like explaining it. As for why I was making light of the story.... isn't that what we do here? take seriousness humorously and soforth?
I play Pathfinder, and before that, D&D since before most of you bastards were born.
I just didn't catch the reference.
And what's this "we" shit, Kimosabe? We don't have a uniform code of behavior. We are good capitalists, and let the Free Market™ decide how peoples' actions get judged.
Personally, I give you a +2 for tastelessness, but the East German judge docked you 10 points for making a gaming reference outside of a gaming community. You're gonna have to settle for the bronze.
It's 9 a.. here I still haven't slept spent 3 hours updating my store. Man I'm fucking tired.