Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

bogwalrus

osarusan wrote: »

Dead mother doesn't qualify as a very good reason?

Do you mean if the mother might die? Then yes of course but that does not apply to this particular case.

SaveOurLyric

osarusan wrote: »

Dead mother doesn't qualify as a very good reason?

Not as a reason, good or bad. Why should it?
Countless mothers have died and continue to in childbirth. Are you saying that when that happens the baby should be killed as well ?

SaveOurLyric

osarusan wrote: »

Did you feel any embarrassment or anything when you typed that nonsense?

No.

bogwalrus

Stark wrote: »

Had things gone differently in the past, my mother might never have met my father and I would never have been born. Would suck but there are infinitely more scenarios where a particular sperm/egg combo doesn't get the opportunity of life than does. What's important is that we respect the rights of people who do exist.

So you are saying a fetus should have no rights. End of story?

You have rights when you are outside the womb? How does one come to this classification of what does/does not deserve the right to life?

Stark

bogwalrus wrote: »

So you are saying a fetus should have no rights. End of story?

You have rights when you are outside the womb? How does one come to this classification of what does/does not deserve the right to life?

If the fetus was viable it would be a different story. If we were talking about keeping a dead body on artificial life support for a couple of weeks to give the baby a chance it would be a different story. When you're talking potentially keeping a cadaver on life support for month's against the family's wishes to support a fetus with no chance of life outside the womb, that's when it gets creepy.

To turn it around, are you saying that women should be treated as no more than incubators, end of story?

volchitsa

bogwalrus wrote: »

So you are saying a fetus should have no rights. End of story?

You have rights when you are outside the womb? How does one come to this classification of what does/does not deserve the right to life?

I think you answer your question right there.
Anything that can more readily be referred to as "what" than as "who" has no particular "right to life", imv anyway, whatever the law currently says.

bogwalrus

so to summarise the two views being argued are:

A fetus has no rights and a woman should be allowed have an abortion for any reason.

A fetus has the right to life unless the mothers life is at risk and a number of other unique situations (rape, suicide).


For the moment I believe point number two to be right and society will probably be divided on this. Healthy discussion from all viewpoints is always good though and that's what makes a good society.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

so to summarise the two views being argued are:

A fetus has no rights and a woman should be allowed have an abortion for any reason.

A fetus has the right to life unless the mothers life is at risk and a number of other unique situations (rape, suicide).


For the moment I believe point number two to be right and society will probably be divided on this. Healthy discussion from all viewpoints is always good though and that's what makes a good society.

you continue to have an argument with someone who isn't there.

bogwalrus

Stark wrote: »

If the fetus was viable it would be a different story. If we were talking about keeping a dead body on artificial life support for a couple of weeks to give the baby a chance it would be a different story. When you're talking potentially keeping a cadaver on life support for month's against the family's wishes to support a fetus with no chance of life outside the womb, that's when it gets creepy.

To turn it around, are you saying that women should be treated as no more than incubators, end of story?

If you read back on my comments that is exactly what I am talking about. I am only arguing if the fetus is viable which I now know in this case the fetus is not and it is shocking our current laws just wont allow them to pull the plug.

The discussion continued on to if the fetus was viable would it have been right to pull the plug and would like to hear some views.

As you say " it would be a different story".

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

you continue to have an argument with someone who isn't there.

? Is that another dig? Being angry at another persons views is not productive.

osarusan

bogwalrus wrote: »

The discussion continued on to if the fetus was viable would it have been right to pull the plug and would like to hear some views.

And in the event that the fetus was viable, would the fact that the dead mother would need to be on life support for many weeks to let the fetus develop and become viable outside the womb not qualify as a very good reason?

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

? Is that another dig? Being angry at another persons views is not productive.

nobody on the thread argued your first point. keep up.

bogwalrus

osarusan wrote: »

And in the event that the fetus was viable, would the fact that the dead mother would need to be on life support for many weeks to let the fetus develop and become viable outside the womb not qualify as a very good reason?

And that is the question. Is it fair to kill a fetus so someone does not have to be on life support and current rights can be preserved?

Is it fair to kill the fetus because the parents decide that's what they want?

Is it fair to kill the fetus because it is causing pain to the family that she is on life support?

I made the point earlier that someone in a coma is kept on life support with the hope of recovery. Is the hope of a childs survival not good enough for life support to be kept on?

BarneyThomas

The way I see this situation is.

When you roll the clock forward several months the position is more clear.
The mother is brain dead and will remain so and when the machines are switched off she is just dead. This will not change.

The baby is born and a living human being, who will grow up to be a person who is very thankful its mother could have helped it live.
My mother had the choice of whether or not to abort me when i was in the womb. She didnt and i am very thankful to her for this.

The baby is the patient here and is not blocking a bed. It is fighting for its life and needs and is entitled to all the help it can get.

MrPudding

BarneyThomas wrote: »

The way I see this situation is.

When you roll the clock forward several months the position is more clear.
The mother is brain dead and will remain so and when the machines are switched off she is just dead. This will not change.

The baby is born and a living human being, who will grow up to be a person who is very thankful its mother could have helped it live.
My mother had the choice of whether or not to abort me when i was in the womb. She didnt and i am very thankful to her for this.

The baby is the patient here and is not blocking a bed. It is fighting for its life and needs and is entitled to all the help it can get.

Try reading the story... The chances are the foetus won't make it to baby. Even if it does it is not likely to grow into a person capable of being thankful for anything.

MrP

Shrap

In my opinion....

bogwalrus wrote: »

And that is the question. Is it fair to kill a fetus so someone does not have to be on life support and current rights can be preserved?

Yes, it is fair. Current rights for a foetus are unsustainable due to varying and individual ways that born adult humans can find themselves in serious crisis.

Is it fair to kill the fetus because the parents decide that's what they want?

Yes. See first reply.

Is it fair to kill the fetus because it is causing pain to the family that she is on life support?

Yes. See first reply.

I made the point earlier that someone in a coma is kept on life support with the hope of recovery. Is the hope of a childs survival not good enough for life support to be kept on?

No. See first reply.

Those of us who do not see a foetus (up to a certain stage, usually viability or somewhere before) as deserving of full human rights, even though they are human, will never see eye to eye with those who do.

However awful/immoral that may seem to people who do, it is a fact of human life that at least 12 Irish women every day (thousands and thousands worldwide) decide that they do not see a foetus as deserving of full human rights and that the circumstances of their own personal crisis are more important than the life of a foetus - never mind all those who agree with them, even if they're not having a crisis pregnancy themselves. That's a lot of people who agree with having access to abortion services.

It is human to need abortion services. That need will never go away (although it can be lessened, with proper sex-education and greater access to affordable contraception, child-care and support for parents), no matter how much legislation is thrown at it. You can't control a human need with the constitution.

Shrap

I would like to add that despite all the abortions worldwide, there is no shortage of humans. Anywhere.

Quazzie

Shrap wrote: »

I would like to add that despite all the abortions worldwide, there is no shortage of humans. Anywhere.

Replace 'abortion' with 'genocide' and the same ridiculous argument applies,.

bogwalrus

Shrap wrote: »

In my opinion....

Yes, it is fair. Current rights for a foetus are unsustainable due to varying and individual ways that born adult humans can find themselves in serious crisis.

I agree that the current rights saying a fetus has the same right to life as its mother are unsustainable but how does that turn in to they have no rights at all? Why cant the fetus just have a basic right to life?You then use this point to justify a yes to all the other questions and I don't see the argument.

Shrap wrote: »

Those of us who do not see a foetus (up to a certain stage, usually viability or somewhere before) as deserving of full human rights, even though they are human, will never see eye to eye with those who do.

I agree. There will always be a divide in relation to full human rights or priority of mother over child but to say a fetus has no rights whatsoever is wrong in my opinion.

Shrap wrote: »

However awful/immoral that may seem to people who do, it is a fact of human life that at least 12 Irish women every day (thousands and thousands worldwide) decide that they do not see a foetus as deserving of full human rights and that the circumstances of their own personal crisis are more important than the life of a foetus - never mind all those who agree with them, even if they're not having a crisis pregnancy themselves. That's a lot of people who agree with having access to abortion services.

It was also a fact in history that white people had more rights than black people. Then society decided that was unfair so things changed. If a woman decides not to have a baby it is going to be very hard to stop her from going ahead with it but that does not mean she is right to end the life of the fetus.

Shrap wrote: »

It is human to need abortion services. That need will never go away (although it can be lessened, with proper sex-education and greater access to affordable contraception, child-care and support for parents), no matter how much legislation is thrown at it. You can't control a human need with the constitution.

I agree that abortions are necessary in society but abortion is not a human need. Food,water and shelter is. Only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy does it become a need. You will have plenty of cases when a baby will need to be aborted. Laws are created for the benefit of society as a whole. You could also argue that laws are there so humanity can continue to persevere but maybe that is a bit philosophical.

I know this is a big out there but I think it makes a good point.

Imagine a situation where there were only ten humans left on earth 5 men and five women but all the women kept aborting the children as they wanted humanity to end. Why do the women have the right to decide that humanity should end. Should their society of ten not make the choice?

Shrap

Quazzie wrote: »

Replace 'abortion' with 'genocide' and the same ridiculous argument applies,.

Yes, that's true. No matter how outlawed genocide is, you will still find humans quite capable of killing other humans over an ideal or a belief. However, pregnancy is a unique state where you are for the most part weighing up the life of an unsentient and incompletely formed human life before it is a viable human and judging whether you can support that pregnancy/life or not. Deal with it, I'm afraid. It's a reality of human life.

Sugar Thief

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, that's true. No matter how outlawed genocide is, you will still find humans quite capable of killing other humans over an ideal or a belief. However, pregnancy is a unique state where you are for the most part weighing up the life of an unsentient and incompletely formed human life before it is a viable human and judging whether you can support that pregnancy/life or not. Deal with it, I'm afraid. It's a reality of human life.

More women who become pregnant should "deal with it" and not kill it for their own convenience.

Shrap

bogwalrus wrote: »

I agree that abortions are necessary in society but abortion is not a human need.

Choice would be a human need in my book.

Imagine a situation where there were only ten humans left on earth 5 men and five women but all the women kept aborting the children as they wanted humanity to end. Why do the women have the right to decide that humanity should end. Should their society of ten not make the choice?

That's a totally rhetorical. It's not a feasible argument at all and I won't bother to imagine it much. We're not experiencing any shortage of humans and if we were, I expect people would be even more reluctant to bring more humans into a situation that was so devastating to humanity that there were only 10 left. I would be anyway.

Shrap

Sugar Thief wrote: »

More women who become pregnant should "deal with it" and not kill it for their own convenience.

No. What are you going to do about it when women say "no" then? Write more laws?

Sugar Thief

Shrap wrote: »

No. What are you going to do about it when women say "no" then? Write more laws?

Don't allow abortions for flippant reasons.

Shrap

Sugar Thief wrote: »

Don't allow abortions for flippant reasons.

Please describe for me a flippant reason not to want to give birth to a baby and either give it up for adoption or raise it, when you don't want to do either.

MrPudding

bogwalrus wrote: »

I agree that abortions are necessary in society but abortion is not a human need. Food,water and shelter is. Only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy does it become a need. You will have plenty of cases when a baby will need to be aborted. Laws are created for the benefit of society as a whole. You could also argue that laws are there so humanity can continue to persevere but maybe that is a bit philosophical.

Women being in control of their own reproductive organs, be that in the form of contraception or abortion, is widely considered to be a massive factor in helping developing societies provide enough food water and shelter for its citizens. This is why bodies like the UN, and other NGOs that don't have a religious axe to grind, are fighting for stronger reproductive rights for women. Of course they are being fought by despicable organisation like the catholic church.

bogwalrus wrote: »

Imagine a situation where there were only ten humans left on earth 5 men and five women but all the women kept aborting the children as they wanted humanity to end. Why do the women have the right to decide that humanity should end. Should their society of ten not make the choice?

I don't have access to a 'roll eye' emoticon big enough for this...

MrP

Sugar Thief

Shrap wrote: »

Please describe for me a flippant reason not to want to give birth to a baby and either give it up for adoption or raise it, when you don't want to do either.

Simply not wanting the child is a flippant reason, it doesn't cut it, not good enough to kill a human life.

Shrap

Sugar Thief wrote: »

Simply not wanting the child is a flippant reason, it doesn't cut it, not good enough to kill a human life.

Soooo.....women who don't ever want to have children are being flippant? Or a woman with 4 children already who is struggling already to raise a family and knows she/they can't afford to raise another is being flippant? These women don't want to have a baby because they have good reason not to want to.

It's not like deciding between whether to have an icecream after lunch or not. That would be flippant. Having a baby is NEVER a flippant decision - likewise, the decision not to.

Edit:

Please describe for me a flippant reason not to want to give birth to a baby and either give it up for adoption or raise it, when you don't want to do either.

"Not wanting to" covers everything from having been raped to not being in any position mentally/emotionally/physically/financially for giving birth. Please describe a "flippant" reason for an abortion.

conorh91

Why are people talking about the rights of the mother? Why are people talking about abortion?

The mother is dead. The dead do not have rights.

The question of an abortion does not arise.

The question remaining is whether the foetus is viable.

If the unborn is viable, she has to be maintained.

If the unborn is not viable, she may be allowed die by turning off the mother's artificial ventilation, depending on the opinion of the medics and the family.

I'm sorry but the mother does not come into this. Sadly, she is dead.

BarneyThomas

MrPudding wrote: »

Try reading the story... The chances are the foetus won't make it to baby. Even if it does it is not likely to grow into a person capable of being thankful for anything.

MrP

So that chance should be ignored and a child will never live?

In my job i am quite close to many situations which involved terminations and have seen the people involved in the weeks, months and even years after such an event.

While I have seen many women glad that they had a termination in the weeks, months and a few years after it.

I have never met any woman who has terminated a pregnancy who is glad they did it, reflecting after several years.

And I have never met any woman who has thought about terminating, but not terminated who has gone on to regret that decision.

There is no adult life here to be concerned about. So it comes down to if you feel that a brain dead womans rights and dignity are more important than giving an unborn child every chance that you would give a living human to prosper.