Suu, your Facebook friends are retards.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Of course, that's irrelevant to the "what kind of person?" question.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, they're kind of hoping for the "viability" argument, if you think about it.

That opens up another whole can of worms.

[Junkenstein]

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.

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.